Newsroom
Decisions on campaign financing violations in Bosnia and Herzegovina
SARAJEVO 27 March 2001
SARAJEVO, 27 March 2001 - At its session on 23 March 2001, the Election Appeals Sub-Commission for Bosnia and Herzegovina (EASC) issued three summary decisions and two individual decisions regarding alleged violations of the campaign financing requirements set out in the Provisional Election Commission (PEC) Rules and Regulations and the state Law on Political Party Financing.
Campaign financing requirements, as set forth in the Rules and Regulations and Law on Party Financing, include:
The Rules and Regulations and the Law on Political Party Financing are designed to ensure transparency in political party financing. The EASC found that nine parties failed to file FDFs by the deadline of December 28, 2000, or failed to file an FDF at a proper location, as was the case for the Party of Democratic Center of Cazin. All of the parties were censured for failing to file FDFs by the deadline and thus violating Article 1601, and were warned that any future violations of the campaign financing requirements could affect their right to participate in elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Furthermore, the EASC stated that it may impose additional sanctions if the FDFs filed to date are determined to be incomplete by the PEC.
The EASC found that 12 parties failed to complete FDFs properly. The most common violation was failure to include all payment bureau accounts on the FDFs. The EASC did note, however, that all of the parties responded to the PEC's request for additional information regarding payment bureau accounts when requested to do so. The EASC censured the parties for violating the disclosure requirements of Article 1601, and warned that any future violations of the campaign financing requirements may affect their right to participate in elections in BiH. Further, the EASC may impose additional sanctions if the information filed to date is still determined to be incomplete by the PEC.
The EASC also considered 13 referrals from the PEC regarding possible violations of campaign financing requirements by six parties: the Party of Democratic Progress (PDP), the Serb Democratic Party (SDS), the Social Democratic Party of BiH (SDP), the Socialist Party of RS (SPRS), the Party for BiH (SBiH) and the New Croat Initiative (NHI). As in the previously cited cases, the EASC found that all the parties failed to complete the FDFs properly. The parties were censured for these violations of Article 1601.
The EASC also found additional violations of Article 1601. The PDP failed to report expenses for billboard space; the SDS Pale Office failed to report debts and the names of creditors; the SDP failed to disclose the costs for the rental of billboards and the printing of posters, and an in-kind contribution from Europlakat; the SBiH in Central Bosnia Canton (Canton 6) failed to report campaign expenses from two companies; and the NHI failed to report the costs of newspaper advertising. The parties were censured for these additional violations and, in the cases of PDP and SDS, were required to provide additional information to the PEC by March 31.
Aside from these summary decisions, the EASC also took decisions in individual cases concerning the SDA and HDZ. The SDA was censured for failing to report all its payment bureau accounts, and the SDA Main Office was censured for under-reporting or failing to report campaign expenses as well as an in-kind contribution from Europlakat. The EASC also found that the SDA Tuzla Office failed to properly report a payment of KM 20,000 from Foto Blicko, and payments of KM 25,000 and KM 15,000 from the organization Omladinski Savez. The EASC noted that two party officials, Muhamed Sadic and Jusuf Alisehovic, were misleading, hostile and aggressive towards OSCE auditors during the review of the party's records. The EASC also noted the similarity between this case and a previous case where the SDA was sanctioned for obstructing an OSCE audit team and directing, controlling and using the funds of Organizacija Porodica Sehida I Poginulih Boraca (Organization of Families of Fallen Soldiers)
As sanctions, the EASC requested that Mr. Alisehovic resign his position as accountant/bookkeeper of SDA Tuzla Office, and Mr. Sadic resign his position as the Vice President of the SDA from Tuzla Canton (Canton 3), by March 27 or face further sanctions from the EASC, including the possible removal of SDA mandates won in the November 2000 general elections. The EASC also removed Mr. Sadic from the Cantonal Assembly of Tuzla Canton, Constituency 203. He may, however, be replaced by the SDA candidate who received the second largest number of votes for Cantonal Assembly, Canton 3, Constituency 203, in the November 2000 general elections.
In the last case, the Croat Democratic Union (HDZ) was censured for failing to report all of its payment bureau accounts. The HDZ was also censured for under-reporting or failing to report campaign expenses and in-kind contributions. In determining this sanction, the EASC considered submissions from OSCE auditors that the HDZ fully co-operated with the review of their records, in direct contrast to the party's previous obstruction noted in prior cases.
The Election Appeals Sub-Commission (EASC) was established by the Provisional Election Commission (PEC) in May of 1996. The EASC's mandate is to investigate and to adjudicate complaints involving violations of the PEC Rules and Regulations and other electoral provisions. As an independent juridical body, the EASC has the authority to receive complaints regarding the electoral process and to determine whether there has been a violation of either the PEC Rules or Regulations or the election provisions in the General Framework Agreement for Peace (GFAP, or the Dayton Peace Accords).
The EASC is granted plenary power to gather evidence. In addition, the EASC has the authority to sanction parties and candidates for violations of the PEC Rules and Regulations. The EASC has a range of sanctioning power, including, among other things, levying fines, removing candidates from a candidates list, removing an individual candidate from the ballot, prohibiting a political party or coalition from running in an election, decertifying a political party or coalition already listed on the ballot, and removing elected officials from office. The EASC retains discretionary power to determine appropriate penalties for actions that are intended to disrupt the electoral process. The EASC also has the authority to apply to the PEC for modifications of the PEC Rules and Regulations; however, no decision by the PEC shall have a retroactive impact upon the decisions of the EASC." The decisions of the EASC are final and binding and cannot be appealed.
For further information please contact OSCE Spokesperson Luke Zahner at ++387/33 292-449.
Campaign financing requirements, as set forth in the Rules and Regulations and Law on Party Financing, include:
- Article 1601 of the Rules and Regulations, which requires political parties to file financial disclosure form (FDFs) with the PEC no later than 30 days after the PEC publishes the results from the November 11, 2000 general elections;
- Article 1606 of the Rules and Regulations, which prohibits the use of public funds for campaign purposes; and
- Article 5 of the state Law on Political Party Financing, which establishes a limit on contributions to political parties.
The Rules and Regulations and the Law on Political Party Financing are designed to ensure transparency in political party financing. The EASC found that nine parties failed to file FDFs by the deadline of December 28, 2000, or failed to file an FDF at a proper location, as was the case for the Party of Democratic Center of Cazin. All of the parties were censured for failing to file FDFs by the deadline and thus violating Article 1601, and were warned that any future violations of the campaign financing requirements could affect their right to participate in elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Furthermore, the EASC stated that it may impose additional sanctions if the FDFs filed to date are determined to be incomplete by the PEC.
The EASC found that 12 parties failed to complete FDFs properly. The most common violation was failure to include all payment bureau accounts on the FDFs. The EASC did note, however, that all of the parties responded to the PEC's request for additional information regarding payment bureau accounts when requested to do so. The EASC censured the parties for violating the disclosure requirements of Article 1601, and warned that any future violations of the campaign financing requirements may affect their right to participate in elections in BiH. Further, the EASC may impose additional sanctions if the information filed to date is still determined to be incomplete by the PEC.
The EASC also considered 13 referrals from the PEC regarding possible violations of campaign financing requirements by six parties: the Party of Democratic Progress (PDP), the Serb Democratic Party (SDS), the Social Democratic Party of BiH (SDP), the Socialist Party of RS (SPRS), the Party for BiH (SBiH) and the New Croat Initiative (NHI). As in the previously cited cases, the EASC found that all the parties failed to complete the FDFs properly. The parties were censured for these violations of Article 1601.
The EASC also found additional violations of Article 1601. The PDP failed to report expenses for billboard space; the SDS Pale Office failed to report debts and the names of creditors; the SDP failed to disclose the costs for the rental of billboards and the printing of posters, and an in-kind contribution from Europlakat; the SBiH in Central Bosnia Canton (Canton 6) failed to report campaign expenses from two companies; and the NHI failed to report the costs of newspaper advertising. The parties were censured for these additional violations and, in the cases of PDP and SDS, were required to provide additional information to the PEC by March 31.
Aside from these summary decisions, the EASC also took decisions in individual cases concerning the SDA and HDZ. The SDA was censured for failing to report all its payment bureau accounts, and the SDA Main Office was censured for under-reporting or failing to report campaign expenses as well as an in-kind contribution from Europlakat. The EASC also found that the SDA Tuzla Office failed to properly report a payment of KM 20,000 from Foto Blicko, and payments of KM 25,000 and KM 15,000 from the organization Omladinski Savez. The EASC noted that two party officials, Muhamed Sadic and Jusuf Alisehovic, were misleading, hostile and aggressive towards OSCE auditors during the review of the party's records. The EASC also noted the similarity between this case and a previous case where the SDA was sanctioned for obstructing an OSCE audit team and directing, controlling and using the funds of Organizacija Porodica Sehida I Poginulih Boraca (Organization of Families of Fallen Soldiers)
As sanctions, the EASC requested that Mr. Alisehovic resign his position as accountant/bookkeeper of SDA Tuzla Office, and Mr. Sadic resign his position as the Vice President of the SDA from Tuzla Canton (Canton 3), by March 27 or face further sanctions from the EASC, including the possible removal of SDA mandates won in the November 2000 general elections. The EASC also removed Mr. Sadic from the Cantonal Assembly of Tuzla Canton, Constituency 203. He may, however, be replaced by the SDA candidate who received the second largest number of votes for Cantonal Assembly, Canton 3, Constituency 203, in the November 2000 general elections.
In the last case, the Croat Democratic Union (HDZ) was censured for failing to report all of its payment bureau accounts. The HDZ was also censured for under-reporting or failing to report campaign expenses and in-kind contributions. In determining this sanction, the EASC considered submissions from OSCE auditors that the HDZ fully co-operated with the review of their records, in direct contrast to the party's previous obstruction noted in prior cases.
The Election Appeals Sub-Commission (EASC) was established by the Provisional Election Commission (PEC) in May of 1996. The EASC's mandate is to investigate and to adjudicate complaints involving violations of the PEC Rules and Regulations and other electoral provisions. As an independent juridical body, the EASC has the authority to receive complaints regarding the electoral process and to determine whether there has been a violation of either the PEC Rules or Regulations or the election provisions in the General Framework Agreement for Peace (GFAP, or the Dayton Peace Accords).
The EASC is granted plenary power to gather evidence. In addition, the EASC has the authority to sanction parties and candidates for violations of the PEC Rules and Regulations. The EASC has a range of sanctioning power, including, among other things, levying fines, removing candidates from a candidates list, removing an individual candidate from the ballot, prohibiting a political party or coalition from running in an election, decertifying a political party or coalition already listed on the ballot, and removing elected officials from office. The EASC retains discretionary power to determine appropriate penalties for actions that are intended to disrupt the electoral process. The EASC also has the authority to apply to the PEC for modifications of the PEC Rules and Regulations; however, no decision by the PEC shall have a retroactive impact upon the decisions of the EASC." The decisions of the EASC are final and binding and cannot be appealed.
For further information please contact OSCE Spokesperson Luke Zahner at ++387/33 292-449.