National Convention on EU: Urgent Changes to Judicial Laws Mean Bypassing Experts and EU Standards

Serbia, EU flags (BETAPHOTO/European Council/FRANCOIS LENOIR)

The National Convention on European Union in Serbia (NCEU) working group for Chapter 23 (judiciary and fundamental rights) on Jan. 13 called on the Serbian Parliament not to debate proposed amendments to judicial laws by urgent procedure, but rather to “return the reform process in the framework of a transparent, inclusive and legal procedure, in accordance with the Serbian Constitution and the country’s European obligations.” 

In a statement, the civil society collaborative network said that urgent changes to laws represent “bypassing experts and EU standards, and also political retribution for disobedience,”, adding that a public debate was “deliberately avoided” by the fact that the formal proposal was not submitted by the Justice Ministry, but by Ugljesa Mrdic, an MP from the ruling Serbian Progressive Party.  

The most “problematic” proposed changes to judicial laws, according to the Convention, include the extension of acting terms for certain posts in prosecution offices, the abolishing of the commission of the High Prosecutorial Council, which decides on objections to mandatory instructions, as well as changes related to the Special Public Prosecutor’s Office for Cybercrime.

There are also concerns, according to the National Convention, about the developments at the time of the election of expert members to the High Council of the Judiciary and the High Prosecutorial Council, which is conducted in an atmosphere of intensified attacks on judges and prosecutors, as well as protests of judicial professionals. It also said that hasty and non-transparent legislative interventions represented an inappropriate form of influence on the judiciary by the legislative and executive branches.

On Jan. 14, the Serbian Parliament is scheduled to debate the proposed amendments. The Parliament’s Judicial Committee on Jan. 13 suggested to MPs to adopt the proposed amendments related to the Law on seats and territorial jurisdictions of courts and public prosecutor’s offices, the Law on the High Prosecutorial Council, the Law on the organization and competence of state authorities for combating cybercrime, the Law on Public Prosecutor’s Office, and the Law on Judges.