Судебные реформы в Сербии и Черногории: аналитический обзор Заключений, принятых Венецианской комиссией на 115-ой пленарной сессии
The article continues a series of analytical reviews of the opinions of the Venice Commission on the issues of judicial power and justice. This review analyzes the opinions of the Commission on judicial reforms in Serbia and Montenegro. Although the authorities of both countries had been working closely with the Venice Commission, some amendments to the constitutional legislation raised comments. In both Serbia and Montenegro it was recognized that there was a need for clarification of the procedure for the formation of bodies of judicial communities, especially in terms of the appointment of non-judicial members of these bodies. The Venice Commission in the case of both countries recognized that the proposed amendments to some extent carry the risk of over-politicizing the approval of these members. The main comments on Serbia related to the need to clarify the conceptual framework used in the package of amendments. Many of the concepts, despite their fundamental importance to law enforcement (for example, "improper performance of the duties of a judge"), are extremely vague and abstract. These inaccuracies can lead, among other things, to abuses in the activities of the bodies of the judicial community. The Serbian judicial reform is also interesting for the fact that the Serbian legislator in the amendments attempted to consolidate a number of rather progressive and innovative provisions, including the upgrading of the status of the assistant judge and the assignment of his separate functions in the administration of justice. The conclusion of the article reiterates the General conclusion of the Venice Commission that the transformation of the judicial system in both Serbia and Montenegro deserves support and approval.