Venice Commission recommends excluding minister from Judicial Academy board

The Venice Commission has provided its opinion on Serbia's proposed law for the Judicial Academy, accepting the academy's function as the exclusive gateway to judicial and prosecutorial professions. However, the commission strongly recommends that the minister or other ministry representatives be entirely excluded from the academy's management board to safeguard its autonomy.

"The Venice Commission considers that the authorities' decision to adopt a model whereby the Judicial Academy becomes the sole entry point into the judicial and prosecutorial professions is a valid public policy choice, which is in line with the Commission's earlier recommendation," the opinion states. "In light of this development, the Commission wishes to emphasize that the independence and autonomy of the Judicial Academy become even more important: it is essential that the Judicial Academy receives strong guarantees for the protection of its independence from the executive power and its autonomy in relations with the High Judicial Council and the High Prosecutorial Council, thereby ensuring that the processes of selection, training, and evaluation are objective, transparent, and merit-based."

The commission noted that a key recommendation to elaborate and clarify procedures related to the special powers of the High Judicial Council and the High Prosecutorial Council concerning the academy's oversight and candidate evaluation was not addressed. Furthermore, regarding the role of the Minister of Justice, the commission acknowledged that proposed changes limiting the minister's decision-making power within the management board were an improvement. However, these changes, such as excluding the minister from certain decisions and altering the consensus requirement for specific board decisions from unanimity to a two-thirds majority, do not sufficiently resolve the core concerns raised in 2024.

The Venice Commission highlighted that a significant portion of the management board's responsibilities would still involve the minister's participation in decisions affecting the academy's institutional structure, examination procedures, and training programs. The commission stressed that the requirement for independence applies to the entire training institution's structure and governance. Reducing the decision-making quorum to a two-thirds majority, it stated, only lessens the degree of consensus needed but does not eliminate the minister's potential contribution.

“

The Venice Commission considers that the authorities' decision to adopt a model whereby the Judicial Academy becomes the sole entry point into the judicial and prosecutorial professions is a valid public policy choice, which is in line with the Commission's earlier recommendation. In light of this development, the Commission wishes to emphasize that the independence and autonomy of the Judicial Academy become even more important: it is essential that the Judicial Academy receives strong guarantees for the protection of its independence from the executive power and its autonomy in relations with the High Judicial Council and the High Prosecutorial Council, thereby ensuring that the processes of selection, training, and evaluation are objective, transparent, and merit-based.