CONSTITUTIONALIZATION OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL IN NORTH MACEDONIA AND SERBIA – CAN WE LEARN FROM EACH OTHER?

Author:

Simović Darko Z.ORCID

Abstract

North Macedonia and Serbia constitutionalized their judicial councils around the same time. From the perspective of the European model of the judicial council, North Macedonia adhered more closely in implementing their sample model, whilst Serbia foresaw constitutional provisions which had not eliminated the channels of political influence over the judiciary. It was clear, immediately following the adoption of the 2006 Constitution, that Serbia had to amend it if it wished to tie its future to the European integration process. Although that process did not unravel quickly and easily, the constitutional amendments which constitute the improved model of the Judicial Council were adopted in 2022. What is characteristic for modelling of the new Judicial Council is the fact that the amendments were based exclusively on the abstract criticisms of the constitutional provisions from 2006 and the recommendations of the Venice Commission that are necessary to adhere to the European model of the Judicial Council. It is paradoxical that the European model of the judicial council is considered the best solution for post-socialist states, without consideration for concrete socio-economic circumstances in individual states, nor the suppositions for successful functioning of this body. After all, neither the concept of the judicial council has been accepted in all member states of Western Europe, nor all post-socialist states have implemented their institutional reforms in that direction. Some of those states had decided to follow their own, authentic road to the independence of the judiciary. This leads to the question: why the European institutions are insisting on the reform of the judiciary that involves the establishment of a pure variation of the so-called European model of the judicial council when it is not a generally accepted model? Furthermore, it is questionable as to whether it has a universal value. Precisely for that reason, the goal of this paper is to present the specific nature of judicial councils in North Macedonia and Serbia. In light of the 2022 constitutional reform in Serbia, an analysis of the extent these two countries could utilize each other’s experiences, seeing as they have a mutual historical heritage and similar level of development of their democratic and legal culture, could be an enlightening one.

Publisher

Institute of Comparative Law

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3