Serbia: Judicial union fears key provisions remain in controversial laws

Nemanja Đurić, president of the Union of Judicial Authorities, stated that three particularly harmful provisions remain within Serbia's amended judicial laws, casting doubt on whether the Venice Commission will approve them. The union closely monitored the commission's June 11-12 plenary session, where a final opinion on the so-called "Mrdic laws", amendments to judicial legislation widely criticized for undermining judicial independence and prosecutorial autonomy, was adopted.

“

The weapons thus produced were intended for sale, fueling an illicit traffic destined for the jurisdictions of the judicial courts of Toulouse and Pau.

Đurić noted that the Venice Commission's preliminary opinion indicated that nine out of ten proposed solutions in the "Mrdic laws" did not align with European standards. He accused Justice Minister Nenad Vujić of misleading the public by presenting this preliminary opinion as positive, highlighting only one provision that received support. The union, along with other professional associations, had not opposed this particular measure.

“

We expect that the aforementioned opinion will be officially available to the professional and general public very soon. Until then, we consider it unserious and irresponsible to give final assessments of its content and significance.

Despite these concerns, the union acknowledged that pressure from legal professionals, including meetings with the Venice Commission, working groups, public hearings, and public actions like the "March for Justice," had some effect. The Ministry of Justice reportedly abandoned seven of the ten contested provisions as a result.

“

Despite this, Minister of Justice Nenad Vujić misled the public by presenting this opinion as positive, highlighting only the one solution that received support and against which neither the Union of Judicial Authorities nor other relevant professional associations in Serbia were ever opposed.

However, Đurić emphasized that the three most damaging provisions remain. These concern the non-appointment of two public prosecutors to the Republic Public Prosecutor's Office for Organized Crime, the method for selecting acting Supreme Public Prosecutors, and the restriction of prosecutorial cooperation with international anti-crime bodies. The Union of Judicial Authorities anticipates that the Venice Commission will not endorse these three measures and expects the legal profession to continue its fight to have them removed from Serbia's legal system.

“

However, the three most detrimental solutions for hard-won standards in the judiciary have remained in the legal texts. These concern the non-appointment of the remaining two public prosecutors to the Republic Public Prosecutor's Office for Organized Crime, the method of electing acting Supreme Public Prosecutor, and the limitation of prosecutorial cooperation with international bodies for combating crime.