Last week the Parliament has, apart from the Law on the Constitutional Court, adopted other laws regulating judiciary and the State Prosecutor’s Office.

Unlike the new Law on the Constitutional Court, which is decent and better than the previous law, the Law on the Judicial Council and the Rights and Duties of Judges and the Law on State Prosecutor’s office are quite disappointing. These laws needed to be more precise and comprehensive, as is the case with laws of some neighbouring countries, and more based on the recommendations offered by the Venice Commission. None of the proposed amendments by some MPs, advocated by HRA, offering numerous improvements of these draft laws have been adopted.

Public debate on these important laws was insufficient, MPs in general have not expressed any interest in ensuring depoliticisation of the membership and their fair treatment in the Judicial and Prosecutorial Council, and HRA is not familiar with judges themselves opposing solutions that jeopardize their independence, such as the one that allows judges of higher courts to go to lower courts and examine the work of judges in addition to the legal remedies procedure and regular assessment, or the one providing for evaluation interviews with judges who are candidates for promotion with a score of 0 to 20, without prescribing what should be assessed by such score.

Although the Law on the Judicial Council and the Rights and Duties of Judges and the Law on State Prosecutor’s Office will not prevent arbitrary selection in the judiciary, the Judicial and Prosecutorial Councils could themselves prove to be more responsible than they used to be and ensure that the adoption of appropriate bylaws and detailed reasonings of decisions convince the public in objectivity and impartiality of their work.

HRA team