srpski english
ЈURY
SERBIAN JURORS ASSOCIATION
 
  

ORGANIZATION

  • The organs
  • The Assembly
  • The Executive Board
  • The Supervision Board
  • The Ethical Board

 

THE DOCUMENTS

  • The foundation decision
  • The Statute
  • The decision regarding
    the president of
    Association selection

 

CONCLUSIONS

  • The Inaugural Assembly Decisions
  • The First Conference Executive Board
    Conclusions
  • The Second Conference Executive Board
    Conclusions
  • The Third Conference Executive Board
    Conclusion

About Us

THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA CONSTITUTION

The Article No. 142: ‘The judges and the juries are taken a part into the course of trial on the way proscribed by the law.’

THE JUDGES ACT

The Article No. 71: ‘Each citizen of the Republic of Serbia who has been reached age of 26 could be appointed for a juror.’

THE SERBIAN JURORS ASSOCIATION is founded in 2008, May of 23rd in Belgrade. The Association is voluntary, professional, nongovernmental and impartial organization. Its overall goal is promotion of the role, function and placement of the jurors into Serbian Judiciary and Administrative System.

The proclaimed goals the Association is being achieved by its devotion to:
  • Building the legal state and ruling of the low,
  • Existing of an independent position of the judges and legislative by its own,
  • Affirmation of the law as profession, social science as well as justice as a final pick of the law,
  • Protection of dignity and elevating of judges and juries reputation as well as legal profession in whole,
  • Financial status of judges and jurors,
  • Supporting of a judiciary reform into the frame of the National Strategy for Judiciary and Administrative System Reform,
  • Education and training in professional and ethical issues for jurors.

NEWS

  • The site is under construction.
  • All published texts are unedited.
  • The final editing of texts and whole site will be done afterward.

 

The Executive Board
Telephone Conference

  • The Ethical Board Third Conference due to urgency was held by telephone as teleconference.
  • During that meeting the set of judicial laws was discussed (Reference: The Third Conference Executive Board Conclusions, No. 3).

THE PRESIDENT OF THE SERBIAN JURORS ASSOCIATION EXPOSE AT THE ASSOCIATION ROUND TABLE


Ladies and Gentlemen, the esteemed colleagues,

My name is Branislav Stosic and I’m a juror and the president of The Serbian Jurors Association.
Our Association has taken a part in public discussion related with a set of judicial laws maybe little bit late over one simple reason – we hadn’t been informed about both, a draft preparation and a public discussion over it. However, we believe that even now isn’t too late due to our opinions and comments set here and elsewhere will have taken into consideration. Thanks to it, Republic of Serbia will be in the position to gain very good and respectable laws – laws that will have led us toward Europe and will have made possible that Europe respect it for both reconciliation with their legislative as well as innovative and significant for European Union legislative development in general.

                                                      1.
We had reconsidered the Draft as well as the Proposal of Judiciary High Council Act and gave our comments due to we were convinced that Serbia Judges Association and Serbian Jurors Association along with Serbian Lawyer Bar should give own representatives into the Judiciary High Council. We still believe that would be excellent solution so we will keep on insisting on its implementation, at least in the Judiciary High Council Operating Procedure Book, and in the other related documents.
In meanwhile, we have established the fact the Republic of Serbia Constitution resolved this issue due to the status and position of Judiciary High Council were defined in details; therefore, we were very grateful those who pointed at this specific regulation in the Constitution to us, because it impossible to act otherwise if we have interceded in behalf of it.

What am I telling you all of this for?

                                                      2.
Aside of the Constitution we could act in regarding to neither the reappointment of the judges nor the jurors. We are convinced that proposed model for reappointments in Article 99 in the Judges Act contains an unconstitutional and illegal solution, regardless of appealing on the Constitution. If some law contains unconstitutional regulations then it violates the Constitution, not otherwise.

For reminding, the Article 146 at the Serbian Constitution said it clearly:
“The function of the judges is permanent.”

By the proposed solution in Article 99 at the Proposition of Judges Act, the possibility of annulations of reappointments is opened as someone actually wished that certain number of judges wouldn’t have proposed for reappointment. There was obvious lack of clear criteria and that had opened both possibility of employment a principle of aptness as well as possibility that for judges might have proposed candidates who weren’t fulfill basic criteria regarding their previous working experience. Those kinds of solutions certainly aren’t a way toward Europe. And aren’t in a harmony with the Serbian Constitution.
If the reappointment was the proposer demand, i.e. demand given by authorized ministry, as far as we are concerned, the proposer on disposal had had all necessary legal instruments definite by the Constitution and laws so he was in a position to explain and propose to the Serbian Parliament to pass a specific law for reappointment of judges. As he acted otherwise, the bad impression stayed.
Due to all mentioned above, the Serbian Jurors Association does propose in Article 99 at the Proposition of Judges Act in both paragraphs should have erased words “until” and “date”. On that way, on clear and suitable way, the permanent status of judges will have been confirmed and the reappointment will have been rejected. In the same time, the Articles 100, 101, 102 and 103 won’t be necessary any longer and should be erased accordingly.

Furthermore, as far as we are concerned, the regulations given regarding the first appointment of the Judiciary High Council in the Proposition of Judiciary High Council Act also are designed rather in political than in judicial context, so we think that those should be erased and both a standard appointment procedure and constituting of the Judiciary High Council employed.

                                                      3.
Finally, we had a remark on the Proposition of the Court and District Attorney's Offices Settings and Jurisdictions in general. We aren’t convinced that merging of municipal courts in larger common court, especially in Belgrade, could achieve rationalization neither in human resources nor in economic sense.
As far as we are concerned in regarding of this issue, into consideration should be taken opinions of all law professionals, and reorganization of court in whole should be very thoroughly analyzed. That research ought to be multidisciplinary settled and processed, so it results could derivate solutions that should be publicly discussed. In accordance to all mentioned here, we think that all necessary predispositions and circumstances for employing of this Act aren’t in place, but we believe there is real possibility of both to pass a law over organization of Court of Appeal and a law of Supreme Court of Judicature.

I thank you all on your attention with hope that comments which I have just presented here will be those which this gathering will have been adopted as its own.

 
designed by jel-nik.com