One of the “key reforms” of the government of Robert Golob is the overhaul of the judicial system, but sharp criticism has been voiced by judges and members of the Judicial Council in light of it. The amendments to the so-called judicial troika – a package of laws on courts, judges, and the Judicial Council – are particularly controversial.
The President of the Judicial Council, Dr Urška Kežmah, has warned that the proposed changes represent a serious interference in the functioning of the judiciary and the autonomy of the Judicial Council: “The Judicial Council has been following the adoption of the so-called judicial troika with concern for some time. This involves the adoption of judicial legislation, namely the draft law on courts, the law on judges, and the amendment to the law on the Judicial Council,” Kežmah noted.
She added that the draft law completely changes the organisation and work of the Judicial Council, with the changes set to take effect as early as next year. The proposal submitted to parliament is disappointing, as it does not contain the solutions that had been previously agreed upon by experts.
She also drew attention to the lack of transparency in the legislative process: “The Judicial Council also cooperated with the Chair of the National Assembly’s Committee on Justice in preliminary discussions, which is why we were all the more surprised by the amendments that were incorporated into the laws on the basis of the committee meeting.”
The Chair of the Committee on Justice, Lena Grgurevič, a member of the ruling Freedom Movement party (Gibanje Svoboda), known for her vulgar outbursts against opposition members, led the proceedings at last week’s marathon committee meeting, which many felt were conducted in a non-transparent and professionally inappropriate manner. In Kežmah’s opinion, this poses a threat to the rule of law.
Restricting the rights of the Judicial Council
The Vice-President of the Judicial Council, Matej Čujovič, highlighted several controversial provisions which, in his opinion, threaten the independence of the judiciary: “Under the current regulations, the scope of judicial review is limited in such a way that the affected individual can challenge our decision on procedural grounds, but cannot challenge the substance of our decision. The proposed regulation removes this limitation,” warned Čujovič.
Restricting the powers of the Judicial Council
According to him, the amendment restricts the Judicial Council’s discretionary power in selecting candidates for judicial positions and assigning judges, while at the same time increasing the role of court presidents in the selection of candidates by allowing them to participate in Judicial Council meetings, ask questions of candidates, and even discuss the selection.
It is also controversial that part of the authority is being transferred to the President of the Supreme Court: “The provisions that prevent the promotion of members of the Judicial Council are worrying, as this would discourage judges from applying for certain positions in the future,” he added.
There is also the issue of the organisation of the courts.
Abolition of district courts
Dr Andrej Ekart, a member of the Judicial Council, warned primarily about the systemic consequences of the reorganisation of the courts: “The proposed solution envisages the abolition of district courts. We opposed this in principle, because every country needs a predictable and stable legal environment,” said Ekart.
Nevertheless, the Judicial Council supports the introduction of a uniform first-instance judge, as a predictable legal environment is important for the security of parties in court proceedings. Ekart concluded that “the Judicial Council will challenge the law before the Constitutional Court if the changes are adopted in their current form.”
A. G.
