VZCZCXRO7716
RR RUEHAST
DE RUEHLJ #0514/01 2240807
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 120807Z AUG 06
FM AMEMBASSY LJUBLJANA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 5077
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RUEAWJA/DOJ WASHINGTON DC
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC
RUEKDIA/DIA WASHDC
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 LJUBLJANA 000514 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR: EUR/NCE, DRL/G/TIP 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ECON PGOV PHUM SI
SUBJECT: SLOVENIA: ELIMINATING BACKLOGGED COURT CASES AND 
 
REFORMING THE JUDICIARY 
 
LJUBLJANA 00000514  001.2 OF 003 
 
 
 
¶1. Summary: The Slovenian court system is plagued with 
backlogs -- over 600,000 cases are currently pending in the 
courts. GOS reform efforts have taken on greater urgency as 
the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has begun fining 
Slovenia for failure to guarantee the right to a trial within 
a reasonable time. While the judiciary has embraced some 
proposed reforms, concerns over preservation of judicial 
independence have increased resistance to other measures, 
such as wage restructuring and replacing life-tenure for 
judges with limited terms. Ultimately Slovenia will have to 
implement a broad array of reforms to improve cooperation 
between prosecutors and police and to enable the judiciary to 
manage cases efficiently. End summary. 
 
--------------------------------------------- --- 
Background: Failed Reforms and Mounting Backlogs 
--------------------------------------------- --- 
 
¶2. Despite years of efforts to reform Slovenia's judicial 
system, many cases still await resolution in Slovenian 
courts. As of December 2005, the Slovenian courts recorded 
524,016 unresolved cases and more than 613,000 cases when 
including unresolved misdemeanors. Though backlogged cases 
have decreased from approximately 667,000 in 2004, the 
numbers remain large and problematic for a country of roughly 
2 million people. 
 
¶3. Since Slovenian independence in 1991, the courts have 
steadily carried a small backlog of cases, but the number of 
pending cases rose significantly during a period of 
unsuccessful judicial reform in 1995-1997.  Later in 2001, 
further attempts at reform were made through the Supreme 
Court's Hercules Project. The Hercules Project sought to 
solve the problem by shifting backlogged cases to 
better-functioning courts and providing the courts extra 
payment for the extra work. Despite some success with 
individual courts, the reforms of the Hercules Project failed 
to produce a substantial reduction in the number of pending 
cases nationwide. 
 
¶4. The large backlog that remains today contributes to a 
sense of public distrust in the courts and has become a 
symbol of the need for real and lasting judicial reform. 
Recently, the reduction of the backlogs has become 
increasingly urgent due to international criticism, including 
rulings against Slovenia from the European Court of Human 
Rights (ECHR). 
 
--------------------------------------------- ----------- 
European Court of Human Rights: Slovenian Violation of the 
Right to a Fair Trial 
--------------------------------------------- ----------- 
 
¶5. Slovenia became a member of the Council of Europe in 1993 
and ratified the European Convention on Human Rights in 1994. 
Despite the substantial backlogs, it was not until October of 
2005 in the case of Lukenda v. Slovenia that the ECHR ruled 
against Slovenia for violating the right to a fair trial, as 
guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention. In Lukenda v. 
Slovenia, the ECHR declared that delays in the Slovenian 
judicial process violated the human rights guarantee to a 
trial within a reasonable time. The applicant in the case, 
Franjo Lukenda, had suffered a work-related in jury for which 
he filed a claim for an increase in disability benefits. He 
brought his case to the ECHR after pursuing the claim in 
Slovenian courts for over five years. Given the relatively 
low degree of complexity of the case, the ECHR found that 
five years was an excessive duration and constituted a 
violation of the Convention. 
 
¶6. Since Lukenda v. Slovenia, the ECHR has ruled against 
Slovenia on over 50 similar cases, with several hundred still 
pending. Despite the gravity of the violations and the 
imposing number of backlogged cases, Slovenia's problem is 
not unique. A number of countries, including Belgium, 
Croatia, France, Greece, Italy, and Slovakia, have previously 
been found in violation of the right to a trial within a 
reasonable time. Like these countries, Slovenia must regard 
the ruling as a call for lasting reform and repair of the 
judicial system. 
 
--------------------------------------------- - 
Proposals for Reform from the Jansa Government 
--------------------------------------------- - 
 
 
LJUBLJANA 00000514  002.2 OF 003 
 
 
¶7. Seeing the backlogged cases as the heart of the problem of 
judicial delay, the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) responded to 
the ECHR rulings with a plan to reduce the number of pending 
cases. In December 2005, the MOJ announced the Lukenda 
Project, a plan to eliminate the backlogs by 2010. Unlike 
Hercules, the Lukenda Project is an expansive plan which will 
combine the efforts of a wide range of actors involved in the 
judicial process including the National Assembly's Committees 
for Interior and Justice, the National Council, The Ombudsman 
for Human Rights, the Bar Association of Slovenia, NGOs, and 
Courts across the country. The Lukenda Project reforms are 
designed to improve the operation of Slovenian courts. 
Measures include the employment of 500 auxiliary court staff, 
improved working conditions for judges and court officials, 
rewards for judges who successfully eliminated backlogs from 
their courts, and upgraded courtroom technology. Other 
announced reforms promise the implementation of a system to 
accelerate and simplify resolution of small claims, the 
creation of a unified statistical database, and the 
establishment of a coordination mechanism between the MOJ, 
the Court Council, and the Supreme Court in order to better 
follow the progress of the courts. 
 
¶8. The Lukenda reforms are in the beginning stages and have 
not yet produced measurable results. However, similar efforts 
to improve courtroom operations have already achieved 
preliminary success on a small scale. In February of 2006, 
the Ljubljana District Court, among the most overburdened 
courts in Slovenia, reported a decrease in backlog by 5% for 
2005, despite a 4.2% increase in the caseload that year.  The 
Ljubljana District Court's Vice President, Marjan Pogacnik 
attributed the court's success to legislative change, which 
provided for financial and staff improvements. The court has 
since applied for additional staff. 
 
--------------------------------------------- -------- 
Criticism of Proposed Reforms of Term-Limits and Wage 
Restructuring 
--------------------------------------------- -------- 
 
¶9. Shortly after the Lukenda ruling, the Justice Minister 
called for cooperation from courts in the creation of plans 
to reduce the backlogs. This effort to collaborate with 
judicial bodies has helped the MOJ win support from within 
the judicial system for many of the aforementioned reforms. 
However, other proposed reform measures of the Lukenda 
Project have been highly contentious and a great deal of 
tension has developed between the legal community and the 
GOS. While all agree on the necessity of eliminating the 
backlogs, disagreement over the fundamental causes of the 
courts' problems and the best means of repairing them has 
created controversy. 
 
¶10. Debate centers on the role of judges and their 
responsibility for the backlogs. Some reformers blame the 
lack of review and accountability of judges who have life 
tenure for the courts' problems. Proposals for term limits 
for judges have the support of the MOJ and many legislators. 
The Minister of Justice has presented proposals calling for 
five-year term appointments instead of lifetime appointments 
for some new judges. However, the heads of the Supreme Court, 
the Judicial Council, and the Judge's Association, as well as 
a number of political parties opposed the proposal. These 
opponents view the term-limits as a threat to judicial 
independence and criticize the extreme nature of the measure, 
which would require a change in the Constitution. They also 
cite existing mechanisms in place to remove incompetent 
judges. Moreover, opponents of the limits object that 
lifetime tenure is not the cause of the backlogs. Rather they 
blame insufficient funding, poor working conditions, and lack 
of technological support. Alongside a statement of opposition 
to the MOJ's plan, the heads of the Supreme Court called for 
an increase in full-tenure judgeships and administrative 
staff, as well proposals for reorganization of the judicial 
structure. The Supreme Court has not, however, put forth its 
own proposal for reorganization. 
 
¶11. Debate likewise surrounds proposals that include a 
program of wage restructuring for judges. In December 2005, 
amid cooperative efforts between court officials and the MOJ 
in the development of the Lukenda Project, the MOJ suggested 
implementing a system of bonuses for productive judges, which 
the Prime Minister also supported. The atmosphere of goodwill 
did not last, however.  More recent proposals, including one 
from the Prime Minister, have called for wage restructuring 
to incorporate a decrease in wages for judges with 
 
LJUBLJANA 00000514  003.2 OF 003 
 
 
problematic backlogs. 
 
¶12. Like term-limits, the plans for wage restructuring aim to 
increase judicial accountability and improve the performance 
of the courts. However, proposals for wage decreases incited 
strident resistance from judges and the implementation of 
wage restructuring was stayed by a Constitutional Court 
decision. The execution of the Law on Judges, the Law on 
System of Salaries in Public Sector, and the Decree on 
Salaries of Officials that contain provisions to reduce 
judicial salaries has been temporarily withheld while the 
court reviews whether the laws will interfere with the 
division of powers, and the preservation of judicial 
independence. 
 
------- 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶13. The reforms of the Lukenda Project aim for widespread, 
long-lasting change. With cooperation between the GOS and the 
judiciary there is great potential for success in this 
transformation. As a new generation of judges and lawyers 
emerge, so does an opportunity for real reform to take root. 
This will not occur, however, without a commitment to change 
from within the judicial community and support for the 
process from all involved. Though the GOS may continue to 
adopt reforms, the changes will have to be implemented from 
within the judicial system and will require sustained and 
widespread support for reformative measures, especially given 
the long-term nature of the project. 
 
¶14. Further, while judicial backlogs are themselves a 
significant cause for alarm, it is important that the GOS 
considers the possibility that the build-up of pending cases 
is symptomatic of deeper, systemic problems. While backlogs 
affect the capacity of courts and judges, simple reduction of 
the number of pending cases may not be a sufficient goal for 
guaranteeing the right to a fair trial. Slovenia must also 
remain focused on building a judiciary capable of managing 
cases without delay, both in civil cases like Lukenda, and in 
criminal proceedings, where delay may allow a guilty party to 
go uncharged or unconvicted. 
 
¶15. Though the Slovenian cases brought to the ECHR have been 
almost entirely complaints about delay in civil matters, the 
need for judicial reform exists in the criminal system as 
well. On 14 June, the State Prosecutor Barbara Brezigar 
reported that criminal activities by unknown perpetrators are 
rising, while the number of charges filed against known 
criminals is declining. The report paints a troublesome 
picture of the decreasing ability of the legal system to 
prosecute crime. Brezigar further expressed a concern over 
difficulties in communication between police and prosecutors, 
suggesting that police may be overburdened by processing 
petty crime. Such systemic problems as a lack of coordination 
between police and prosecutors suggest the need for systemic 
solutions, to address not only courtroom aspects of judicial 
reform but also the entire law enforcement system. 
 
¶16. The European Council has laid out potential measures for 
systemic judicial change in "Recommendation No. R (87) 
Concerning the Simplification of Criminal Justice." Some 
recommendations are relevant to Slovenia's situation, 
including the simplification of procedures for minor 
offenses, the limited use of "guilty pleas" and the reduced 
practice of judicial investigation, where appropriate. The 
European Council has also published a note on successful 
measures taken by countries that have achieved judicial 
reform. Some simple practices, such as the courtroom use of 
binding deadlines for filing papers and penalties for parties 
who misuse the system, could be useful expedients in 
Slovenian courts. Additionally, more fundamental changes have 
been successfully implemented in other countries, including 
the switch from an inquisitorial system to an adversarial 
system, and the development of a program for alternative 
dispute resolutions, or out of court settlements. Though the 
suitability of specific measures must be carefully examined 
by Slovenia itself, serious exploration of these 
recommendations for substantial change will be essential to 
building a functioning, sustainable judicial system. 
COLEMAN