Banks Seek Exemption of Judge Jug, Franak: It Is Pressure on the Court

Before a possible convening of a session of the expanded council of the Supreme Court regarding loans in Swiss francs, relations between banks and consumers have once again become strained. The Croatian Banking Association (HUB) reported that it sent a letter to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia warning about open questions related to the formal prerequisites for convening such a session, as well as the need for timely and complete information to the parties about the composition of the council and the course of the proceedings.

HUB also requested a statement regarding Judge Jadranko Jug, who could participate as a reporter in the cases of converted loans. They also seek clarification on whether the rules on exemption will be consistently applied to other judges in similar circumstances.

– The impartiality of judges is the foundation of every court proceeding and must not be called into question. In all situations where there are circumstances that may indicate a conflict of interest, the rules on exemption must be applied strictly and without exception. In international practice, such standards are applied restrictively precisely to preserve trust in decision-making, HUB states.

Clear Interpretation Required

They further warn that it is not clear from the Rules of Procedure of the Supreme Court who is authorized to convene a session of the expanded council in a situation where the president of the court has not been appointed, which they believe requires a clear interpretation.

– At the same time, the judiciary must operate without any external influences and without creating pre-defined expectations about the outcomes of individual proceedings. Practices of influence through public space and instructions to judges on how they should rule presented in public space by representatives of certain associations and interest groups seriously compromise the process, create undue influence on the court, and call into question the possibility of impartial and fair decision-making, HUB emphasizes.

After HUB’s statement and the request for the exemption of Judge Jug, we sought clarification on the rules of exemption from lawyer Igor Metelko, who represents consumers.

The Law Defines Reasons for Judge Exemption

– Regarding the possible participation of Judge Jadranko Jug in decision-making, the mentioned judge has already participated in numerous CHF cases as a council member, and his personal circumstances, which could affect his impartiality, have not changed to this day, at least as far as I know, Metelko explains.

He stated that the law on civil procedure exhaustively lists the reasons for the exemption of a judge, so in this case, the excluding circumstances would be that he is related to the party, legal representative, or attorney in the specific proceeding being decided upon in the appeal, or that he has already decided on the same matter at a lower level, etc.

– A priori submitting requests for his exemption just because someone does not like his views is legally unserious, Metelko believes.

Judges with Opposing Views

He adds that there are judges on the Supreme Court with opposing legal views, who also have similar personal circumstances and connections that would indicate their questionable impartiality, but they are not exempted from decision-making. On the contrary, they have been reporting judges and have very decisively presented their views that went against consumers and their rights.

– After all, there will always be dissatisfied parties, on one side or the other, and it is up to the Supreme Court to make a decision that is based on the law, the practice of the EU Court, and legal logic, considering that it will, in any scenario, be subject to examination by the Constitutional Court, and then by the court in Strasbourg, Metelko says.

Pressure on Courts and Public

In the Franak Association, this statement from HUB is interpreted as an attempt to pressure the courts and the public. They claim that banks are deliberately questioning Judge Jug because he was part of the council that recognized consumers’ right to compensation.

– HUB is now attacking precisely the members of that council, and they have previously known exactly which council would decide on which case, so banks withdrew appeals in such cases to avoid a potential decision that is positive for consumers, says Goran Aleksić, coordinator of the Franak Association.

Let us recall that a session of this kind was scheduled a year and a half ago, but since one of the banks in that case was the appellant, they withdrew it when they learned the composition of the council that did not suit them, thus avoiding a decision in that case.

Specific Reasons for Exemption

Aleksić added that Judge Jug has been exempted in certain cases solely for specific reasons, for example, when his son represented one of the parties as a lawyer, which represents a standard procedural situation.

– In cases where Judge Jug’s son does not represent one of the parties in the case in which Judge Jadranko Jug participates in making a decision, exemption cannot be granted, as there is no potential conflict of interest in such a case. Just because someone does not like the decisions of a particular judge or has a subjective impression that the case should be resolved differently is not a legally prescribed reason for exemption, nor is it provided for by constitutional law practice. What is next, a request from HEP for the exemption of all judges who have a contracted electricity distribution service!? – Aleksić concluded, sending a resolution in which the request for the exemption of Judge Jug was denied.