“The people have also entrusted the Ministry of Justice to exercise power responsibly and fairly on their behalf. The people do not want the minor judicial reform to be adopted simply by a majority vote in the National Assembly, but rather by the broadest possible social consensus and with the inclusion of proposals from the Association of Lay Judges of Slovenia, who represent and exercise judicial power for the people in the courtrooms,” the Association of Lay Judges is clear.
The ruling coalition is rushing to pass a whole package of laws on the judiciary, judges, the Judicial Council, and the State Prosecutor’s Office. Even though the opposition pointed out a whole lot of unclear parts, controversial provisions, and the possibility of political influence on judge appointments, they got outvoted many times. It should be noted that the Association of Lay Judges warned in a recent open letter that the chair of the National Assembly’s Committee on Justice, Lena Grgurevič, is violating the constitution and excluding the voice of the people from the debate on justice in her preparation of amendments to the Courts Act and other judicial laws. The President of the association, Peter Hartman, emphasised that the reform of the judicial system must be adopted after public consultation, not behind closed doors in coalition meetings.
The Association of Lay Judges wrote to the Minister of Justice and the Ministry of Justice in connection with the preparation of the so-called minor judicial reform. In the introduction, they stated that it was necessary for the reform to be adopted with the broadest possible social consensus and with the inclusion of the proposals of the Slovenian Association of Lay Judges, as this would send a clear signal to the people “that the rules set out in the minor judicial reform are acceptable and understood as fair, which is the basis for a stable and trustworthy judicial system in which judges and lay judges will decide independently and impartially in court proceedings.”
They went on to recall that at a meeting at the Ministry of Justice on the 23rd of October last year, they presented proposals and solutions for improving the functioning of the lay judge system. “Almost a year has passed since then, so we believe it would be appropriate for the reform to also take into account some of our association’s key proposals, which would significantly contribute to fairer judgments and greater public confidence in the judicial system,” they stated clearly and listed several specific proposals.
In favour of excluding political bodies from the appointment and confirmation procedures
The Association of Lay Judges proposed regarding the Judicial Council that it “retain at least the same duties and powers as it has under current legislation, or that these be increased, particularly in the area of independence and accountability.” They believe that lawyers – representatives of the people from among the ranks of lay judges – should also be appointed to it. In their opinion, this would strengthen “the appearance of independence and impartiality of the Judicial Council.” They advocate that political bodies be excluded from the procedures for appointing and confirming professional judges and lay judges. For the purposes of monitoring the work of court presidents, professional judges, and lay judges (associate judges), they propose that inspectors at the disciplinary court are to determine whether the work of the Judicial Council complies with the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, laws, and the European Convention on Human Rights.
Selection of professional judges and lay judges through a public call for applications
Professional judges and lay judges should be selected through a public call for applications. All candidates who meet the predetermined conditions may apply, and an impartial personnel committee at the Judicial Council is then responsible for making the selection. Artificial intelligence could also assist in this process. “The Judicial Council should retain its discretionary power in the selection process. The selection of lay judges should take into account: equal regional representation, at least secondary school education, and other predetermined criteria agreed upon by the Judicial Council and the Ministry of Justice.”
Court presidents should be criminally and materially liable for intentional errors in the performance of their duties
Regarding dismissal and liability, they propose that the Judicial Council terminate the employment of a professional judge for culpable reasons or temporarily suspend them if need be. “A lay judge may be dismissed from office for reasons of misconduct, without the possibility of reappointment. Court presidents should be criminally and materially liable for intentional errors committed in the performance of their judicial duties,” they emphasise, adding that professional judges should not be allowed to restrict the independence of lay judges. “Professional judges and lay judges should be specially rewarded for their efficiency, diligence, and quality of work,” they add.
In favour of the inclusion of lay judges in all courts
In the opinion of the association, lay judges should be included in the work of all courts, except for the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia. They point out that this is the case in many places where the judiciary enjoys a high level of public trust. “The selection of professional judges and lay judges for mixed panels should be carried out by artificial intelligence or a computer algorithm, which would further reduce the possibility of influence and strengthen objectivity,” they state, adding that lay judges should be required to undergo retraining after reaching the age of 65.
“In exceptional cases, the term of office of a lay judge may be extended until the age of 70,” they say. They believe it would be appropriate for court presidents and judges to retire at the age of 70, thus giving the younger generation a chance. If anyone else wishes to remain active, they could, in their opinion, “take on the honorary role of veteran judge, whose main task would be to advise and transfer knowledge to younger staff in the judiciary.”
The Slovenian Association of Lay Judges is surprised by the inconsistent position of the Minister of Justice. She “does not advocate public debate in the Committee on Justice, but when it comes to supplementing the lay judge system, she supports public debate and even proposes it herself.” “Our legal advisors emphasise that lay judges should be treated appropriately in the Courts Act. Lay judges are a constitutional category, so we believe that Article 3 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, which stipulates that power in Slovenia belongs to the people, is being violated,” they criticise, pointing out that lay judges are official representatives of the people who, together with professional judges, exercise independent and impartial judicial power. “High-quality and balanced legislation is the foundation for greater public confidence in the judiciary,” they emphasise, asking the minister to include the proposals in further discussions on minor judicial reform and to enable a truly inclusive debate on the future of the Slovenian judiciary.
Democracy does not need a silent majority, but the voice of reason, justice, and courage
In this regard, they also addressed the members of the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia, reminding them that “as the sole holders of legislative power and representatives of the will of the people, they are obliged to correct the mistakes of the legislator, since their role is not merely formal, but carries a profound legal, ethical, and political responsibility to citizens and society as a whole.” “Silence, passivity, or even blind voting according to the instructions of political leaders means neglecting the function of guardian of legality and passively allowing abuse of power,” they warn, adding that a member of parliament is first and foremost a person with a conscience, and only after that a politician.
According to the association, a sense of justice is what is expected of politicians. “Ethical responsibility means that a member of parliament must not remain silent when the authorities take measures that violate the fundamental values of democracy, justice, and human dignity. Political responsibility goes beyond formal voting. It includes: acting in the public interest, not in the interests of the party or capital structures; openness to dialogue with civil society; active participation in debates, even when they are uncomfortable or politically risky. The silence of the majority of MPs in the face of obvious abuses of power is a denial of the basic function of parliament as a forum for the people,” they say, warning that “when MPs remain silent when they should speak and wait when they should act, their silence becomes the voice of the arbitrariness of power.” When MPs give up thinking and critical judgment, according to the association, they become not only indifferent, but also complicit.
Ž. N.
