ISSN 2663-0583 (Online)
ISSN 2663-0575 (Print)
  • Home
  • Judicial Reforms in Eastern Europe: Ensuring the Right to a Fair Trial or an Attack on the Independence of the Judiciary?
"

Judicial Reforms in Eastern Europe: Ensuring the Right to a Fair Trial or an Attack on the Independence of the Judiciary?

Summary: 1. Introduction. The Right to a Fair Trial and Independence of the Judiciary. – 2. Elements of Judicial Independence. – 3. Judicial Reforms in Eastern Europe: General Overview. – 3.1 Serbia. – 3.2 Northern Macedonia. – 3.3 Poland. – 3.4 Hungary. – 3.5 Romania. – 3.6 Moldova. – 3.7 Ukraine. – 4. Common Features of the Analysed Judicial Reforms in the Countries of Eastern Europe. – 5. Conclusions.

FULL TEXT

Full Text:

DOI
https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-4.1-a000049
CITATIONS
VIEWS
5 934
Abstract About Author(s) References Reviews Українською

Abstract

The right to a fair trial is one of the essential elements of the rule of law – a fundamental value of the modern constitutional state. Among the systems of institutional, organisational, and substantive guarantees for ensuring this right, which stem from the European Court of Human Rights case law, there is ‘a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law’. This requirement is organically linked to the principle of the separation of powers, which is a central tenet of constitutionalism and provides for the functioning of the judiciary as a separate, independent branch of power. Therefore, any changes in the judicial systems of modern constitutional states, or, moreover, judicial reforms, should not only avoid contradicting these principles but, on the contrary, should be aimed at ensuring the right to a fair trial. However, the experience of such reforms in a number of Eastern European countries, despite the declaration of their perfectly legitimate and positive goals, raises questions about their true direction. As a result, not only does the institutional mechanism for the protection of human rights (which is the immediate goal of proclaiming the right to a fair trial) suffer, but also the constitutional systems of the countries concerned become unbalanced and unable to respond adequately to political challenges. This paper examines the essence of judicial reforms in a number of Eastern European countries (Serbia, Northern Macedonia, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Moldova, and Ukraine) and analyses them in terms of their impact on ensuring the right to a fair trial and the functioning of constitutional systems

About Authors

References

Habermas J, ‘Civil disobedience: Litmus test for the democratic constitutional state’ (1985) 30 Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 95–116 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/41035345> accessed 14 February 2021.

Sajo A, ‘Corruption, clientelism, and the future of the constitutional state in Eastern Europe’ (1998) 37 E. Eur. Const. Rev., 37.

Myerson R, ‘The autocrat’s credibility problem and foundations of the constitutional state’ (2008) 102 (1) The American Political Science Review, 125–139 DOI:10.2307/27644502.

Joppke Ch, Is multiculturalism dead?: Crisis and persistence in the constitutional state (Cambridge 2017).

Barber N, The constitutional state (Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2011) DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199585014.001.0001.

Weinrib J, ‘The modern constitutional state’ in Dimensions of dignity: The theory and practice of modern constitutional law, Cambridge Studies in Constitutional Law (Cambridge University Press 2016) DOI:10.1017/CBO9781316026663.005.

Gosewinkel D, ‘The constitutional state’ in Heikki Pihlajamäki, Markus D Dubber and Mark Godfrey (eds), The Oxford handbook of european legal history (Oxford University Press 2018) DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198785521.013.42.

Statute of the Council of Europe, London, 5.V.1949, preamble and articles 1, 3 <https://rm.coe.int/1680306052> accessed 12 February 2021.

Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union, Official Journal of the European Union, 9 May 2008, C 115/15.

Couso J, ‘Models of democracy and models of constitutionalism: The case of Chile’s constitutional court 1970–2010’ (2011) Texas Law Review, 1517-1536

Tremblay LB, ‘Two models of constitutionalism and the legitimacy of law: Dicey or Marshall?’ (2006) 6 (1) Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal, 77–101 DOI: 10.1080/14729342.2006.11421466.

Gardbaum S, ‘Introduction’ in The new commonwealth model of constitutionalism: Theory and practice, Cambridge Studies in Constitutional Law (Cambridge University Press 2013) DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511920806.001.

Boryslavska O, Yevropeiska model konstytutsionalizmu: Systemno-aksiolohichnyi analiz (Kharkiv 2018) 244–260 

CDL-AD(2014)036, Report on the Implementation of International Human Rights Treaties in Domestic Law and the Role of Courts, adopted by the Venice Commission at its 100th plenary session (Rome, 10–11 October 2014), Strasbourg, 8 December 2014 (рр. 4–5).

Basic Principles on the Independence of The Judiciary (General Assembly Resolutions 40/32 And 40/146).

Montreal Universal Declaration on the Independence of Justice, adopted at the final plenary session of the First World Conference on the Independence of Justice held at Montreal (Quebec, Canada) on 10 June 1983.

The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, adopted by the Economic and Social Council of the UN, ECOSOC 2006/23.

Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 On judges: Independence, efficiency and responsibilities and explanatory memorandum (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 17 November 2010
at the 1098th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies).

Recommendation No R(94)12 Of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the Independence, Efficiency and Role of Judges (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 13 October 1994 at the 518th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies).

Opinion No 1 (2001) of the Consultative Council of European Judges for the attention of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on standards concerning the independence of the judiciary and the irremovability of judges.

European Charter on the statute for judges, Council of Europe, DAJ/DOC (98) 23, 10 July 1998.

CDL-AD(2010)004, Report on the Independence of the Judicial System, Part I: The Independence of Judges, Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 82nd Plenary Session (Venice, 12–13 March 2010). <http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2010)004-e> accessed 12 February 2021.

CDL(2015)004, Preliminary Opinion on the Draft Law on Amending the Law on the Judicial System and the Status of Judges of Ukraine, Strasbourg, 11 February 2015. <http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL(2015)004-e> accessed 12 February 2021.

CDL-AD(2007)004, Opinion on the Constitution of Serbia, adopted by the Commission at its 70th plenary session (Venice, 17–18 March 2007), Strasbourg, 19 March 2007. <http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2007)004-e> accessed 12 February 2021.

CDL-AD(2007)003, Opinion on the Draft Law on the Judiciary and the Draft Law on the Status of Judges of Ukraine, adopted by the Venice Commission at its 70th Plenary Session (Venice, 16–17 March 2007), para 26. <http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2007)003-e> accessed 12 February 2021.

CDL-AD(2003)12, Memorandum Reform of the Judicial System in Bulgaria, Conclusions, adopted by the Venice Commission at its 55th plenary session (Venice, 13–14 June 2003), para 15.a. <http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2003)012-e> accessed 12 February 2021.

CDL-AD(2011)033, Opinion on Proposals Amending the Draft Law on the Amendments to the Constitution to Strengthen the Independence of Judges of Ukraine, adopted by the Venice Commission at its 97th Plenary Session (Venice, 6–7 December 2013), para 79. <http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/CDL-AD(2011)033-e.aspx> accessed 12 February 2021

CDL-D(2013)034, Opinion on Proposals Amending the Draft Law on the Amendments to the Constitution to Strengthen the Independence of Judges of Ukraine, Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 97th Plenary Session (Venice, 6–7 December 2013), para 25 <http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2013)034-e> accessed 12 February 2021.

Resolution 2188 (2017), New threats to the rule of law in Council of Europe member States: selected examples, PACE <http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=24214&lang=en> accessed 12 February 2021.

O Mader, ‘Enforcement of EU values as a political endeavour: Constitutional pluralism and value homogeneity in times of persistent challenges to the rule of law’ (2019) 11 Hague J Rule Law, 133–170 DOI:10.1007/s40803-018-00083-x.

Official website of the Ministry of Justice of Republic of Serbia, <https: arhiva.mpravde.gov.rs/en/articles/judiciary/national-judicial-reform-strategy/> accessed 12 February 2021.

National Judicial Reform Strategy, Republic of Serbia Ministry of Justice p. 4, para B, Key principles. <https: arhiva.mpravde.gov.rs/uploads/en/judiciary/national-judicial-reform-strategy/national-judicial-reform-strategy/Strategy.pdf> accessed 12 February 2021.

Beširević V, ‘“Governing without judges”: The politics of the Constitutional Court in Serbia’ (2014) 12 (4) International Journal of Constitutional Law, 954–979 DOI:10.1093/icon/mou065

The honouring of obligations and commitments by Serbia, Resolution 1858 (2012) <http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=18065&lang=en> accessed 12 February 2021.

Serbia Judicial Functional Review Executive Summary with Recommendations, Multi-Donor Trust Fund for Justice Sector Support in Serbia. October 2014, p. 4 <http://www.mdtfjss.org.rs/archive//file/Serbia%20JFR%20-%20Main%20Findings%20and%20Recommendations.pdf> accessed 12 February 2021.

Council of Europe, European Committee’s on Legal Cooperation website <https: www.coe.int/en/web/cdcj/serbia-strengthening-the-judiciary-reform-process-in-serbia> accessed 12 February 2021.

Preshova D, Damjanovski I and Nechev Z, ‘The Effectiveness of the European model of judicial independence in the Western Balkans: Judicial councils as a solution or a new cause of concern for judicial reforms’ Center for the Law of EU External Relations, CLEER Papers 2017/1.

CDL-AD(2015)042, Opinion on the Laws on the Disciplinary Liability and Evaluation of Judges of ‘The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’, adopted by the Venice Commission at its 105th Plenary Session (Venice, 18–19 December 2015), Strasbourg, 21 December 2015, para 6 <http: www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2015)042-e> accessed 12 February 2021.

CDL-AD(2017)033, Opinion on the Draft Law on the Termination of the Validity of the Law on the Council for Establishment of Facts and Initiation of Proceedings for Determination of Accountability for Judges… <http: www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2017)033-e> accessed 12 February 2021.

Strategy for Reform of the Judicial Sector for the Period 2017–2022 with an Action Plan, Republic of Macedonia Ministry of Justice, p. 2 <https://rm.coe.int/strategy-for-reform-of-the-judicial-sector-for-the-period-2017-2022-wi/16808c4384> accessed 12 February 2021.

CDL-AD(2017)031 Opinion on the Draft Act Amending the Act on the National Council of the Judiciary, on the Draft Act Amending the Act on the Supreme Court, Proposed by the President of Poland, and on the Act on the Organisation of Ordinary Courts, Strasbourg, 11 December 2017, <www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2017)031-e> accessed 12 February 2021.

Act on the Supreme Court of 8 December 2017 with amendments of 20 December 2019, Poland <https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-REF(2020)005-e> accessed 12 February 2021.

CDL-AD(2017)028, Opinion on the Act on the Public Prosecutor’s Office, as amended, § 20, Strasbourg, 11 December 2017 <www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2017)028-e> accessed 12 February 2021.

European Parliament resolution of 13 April 2016 on the situation in Poland <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P8-TA-2016-0123&language=EN> accessed 12 February 2021. 

European Parliament resolution of 14 September 2016 on the recent developments in Poland and their impact on fundamental rights as laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P8-TA-2016-0344&language=EN> accessed 12 February 2021. 

European Parliament resolution of 15 November 2017 on the situation of the rule of law and democracy in Poland <www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2017-0442> accessed 12 February 2021.

CDL-AD(2012)001-e, Opinion on Act CLXII of 2011 on the Legal Status and Remuneration of Judges and Act CLXI of 2011 on the Organisation and Administration of Courts of Hungary, adopted by the Venice Commission at its 90th Plenary Session (Venice, 16–17 March 2012) <https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/CDL-AD(2012)001-e.aspx> accessed 12 February 2021.

European Parliament resolution of 3 July 2013 on the situation of fundamental rights: standards and practices in Hungary (pursuant to the European Parliament resolution of 16 February 2012). П. BC. <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc. do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2013-0315+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN> accessed 12 February 2021.

Botezatu E, Regional cooperation in Central and Southeastern Europe: the Romanian experience in fighting corruption, European Institute of Romania, October 2006 <https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/3163/> accessed 12 February 2021.

Mendelski M, Romanian rule of law reform: A two dimensional approach (Romania under Basescu 2011) 155–179.

European Commission, EU Anti-Corruption Report, Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, Brussels, 3 February 2014 COM(2014) 38 final <https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/e-library/documents/policies/organized-crime-and-human-trafficking/corruption/docs/acr_2014_en.pdf> accessed 12 February 2021.

Report from the Commission to the European parliament and the Council On Progress in Romania under the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism, Brussels, 15 November 2017 COM(2017) 751 final.

CDL-PI(2018)007, Opinion on draft amendments to Law No. 303/2004 on the statute of judges and prosecutors, Law No. 304/2004 on judicial organization, and Law No. 317/2004 on the Superior Council for Magistracy, para 161 <https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2018)017-e> accessed 12 February 2021.

CDL-AD(2018)017, Opinion on draft amendments to Law No 303/2004 on the statute of judges and prosecutors, Law No. 304/2004 on judicial organization, and Law No 317/2004 on the Superior Council for Magistracy, para 162 <https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2018)017-e> accessed 12 February 2021.

CDL-AD(2018)021, Opinion on Amendments to the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, adopted by the Venice Commission at its 116th Plenary Session (Venice, 19–20 October 2018) <https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2018)021-e> accessed 12 February 2021.

CDL-AD(2019)014, Opinion on Government Emergency Ordinance 7/2019 of 20 February 2019 on amendments to the three laws of justice in Romania (CDL-REF(2019)013 <https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2019)014-e> accessed 12 February 2021.

Constitution of the Republic of Moldova, art. 143(2) <https://www.presedinte.md/eng/constitution> accessed 12 February 2021.

CDL-AD(2020)015, Urgent Joint Opinion of the Venice Commission and the Directorate of Human Rights (DHR) of the Directorate Generale of Human Rights and Rule of Law (DGI) of the Council of Europe on the Draft Law on Amending the Law No 947/1996 on the Superior Council of Magistracy <https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2020)015> accessed 12 February 2021.

CDL-AD(2020)007, Joint Opinion of the Venice Commission and the Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law (DGI) of the Council of Europe on the Revised Draft Provisions on Amending and Supplementing the Constitution with Respect to the Superior Council of Magistracy <https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2020)007-e> accessed 12 February 2021.

Law of Ukraine ‘On Restoration of Confidence in the Judiciary in Ukraine’ of 8 April 2014 <https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1188-18#Text> accessed 12 February 2021.

Reports of the temporary commission <http://www.vru.gov.ua/add_text/30> accessed 12 February 2021.
CDL-AD(2007)028, Judicial Appointments Report adopted by the Venice Commission at its 70th Plenary Session (Venice, 16–17 March 2007), Venice, 22 June 2007 <http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2007)028-e> accessed 12 February 2021.

Reviews for article

Add a Review

Reviews are moderated and will be published after verification!
All comments not related to reviews of the article will be deleted!

Судова реформа у Східній Європі: забезпечення права на справедливий суд або напад на незалежність судової влади?

Бориславська Олена доктор юридичних наук, професор кафедри конституційного права,Львівський національний університет імені Івана Франка, Україна

Анотація Право на справедливий суд є одним із найважливіших елементів верховенства права - фундаментальної цінності сучасної конституційної держави. Серед систем інституціональних, організаційних та матеріальних гарантій забезпечення цього права, що випливають із практики Європейського суду з прав людини, існує «справедливий та публічний розгляд у незалежному та неупередженому суді, створеному законом». Ця вимога органічно пов'язана з принципом поділу влади, який є центральним принципом конституціоналізму та передбачає функціонування судової влади як окремої, незалежної гілки влади. Отже, будь-які зміни в судовій системі сучасних конституційних держав, або, тим більше, судові реформи, повинні не лише уникати суперечності цим принципам, а, навпаки, повинні бути спрямовані на забезпечення права на справедливий суд. Однак досвід таких реформ у ряді східноєвропейських країн, незважаючи на декларування їх цілком законних і позитивних цілей, викликає питання щодо їх справжнього напрямку. В результаті страждає не тільки інституційний механізм захисту прав людини (що є безпосередньою метою проголошення права на справедливий судовий розгляд), але й конституційні системи відповідних країн стають незбалансованими і не в змозі адекватно реагувати на політичні виклики. У цій роботі розглядається суть судових реформ у низці східноєвропейських країн (Сербія, Північна Македонія, Польща, Угорщина, Румунія, Молдова та Україна) та аналізується з точки зору їх впливу на забезпечення права на справедливий суд та функціонування конституційних систем.

Ключові слова: судова реформа, право на справедливий суд, незалежність судової влади, поділ влади.

Keywords

judicial reformthe right to a fair trialindependence of the judiciaryseparation of powers

How to cite it?

  • O Boryslavska ‘Judicial Reforms in Eastern Europe: Ensuring the Right to a Fair Trial or an Attack on the Independence of the Judiciary?’ 2021 1(9) Access to Justice in Eastern Europe 122–142.

    DOI: 10.33327/AJEE-18-4.1-a000049

Selected Articles

Latest Articles