Serbian Prosecutors' Association Refuses to Join Hearing on Prosecutor Law
Translated from Serbian, summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.
At a glance
- The Prosecutors Association of Serbia will not participate in a public hearing on amendments to the Law on the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
- The association cited a lack of necessary conditions for professional dialogue and insufficient transparency in the process.
- Key Venice Commission recommendations, particularly regarding the High Prosecutorial Council's powers, were omitted from the proposed amendments.
The Prosecutors Association of Serbia announced it will boycott the public hearing on the Draft Amendments to the Law on the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The association stated its refusal to participate stems from a desire to avoid lending legitimacy to a process where essential conditions for professional dialogue are absent.
The Association will not participate in the public hearing, because we do not want our formal presence to create the appearance of a professional dialogue for which the necessary conditions have not been provided.
In a press release, the association explained that the proposed amendments only partially incorporate recommendations from the Venice Commission's urgent follow-up opinion. Notably, the crucial clarification of the High Prosecutorial Council’s discretionary powers in selecting candidates who have completed training at the Judicial Academy has been entirely omitted. This omission is significant, as the state had committed to addressing this issue through the law's amendments.
Namely, the clarification of the High Prosecutorial Council’s discretionary powers when selecting candidates who have successfully completed prior training at the Judicial Academy has been completely omitted, although the state has committed to regulating this issue precisely through amendments to the Law on the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
The association also criticized the overall lack of transparency in the legislative process from its inception. Furthermore, they pointed to the timing of the public hearing in August, a period when many legal professionals are on annual leave, as further hindering participation and reducing the process's visibility. This scheduling choice, they argue, does not contribute to the transparency the law should embody.
Organizing a public hearing in August, when a large part of the professional community is on annual leave, further reduces the visibility of the entire process, makes it difficult for the professional community to participate, and does not contribute to the transparency of the process.
Originally published by N1 Serbia in Serbian. Translated, summarized, and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.