Putevi i stranputice reforme pravosuđa
Paths and Mistaken Paths to Judicial Reform

Summary/Abstract: The author examines the basis of legitimisation, the legal grounds and consequences of the general election of judges in Serbia. The legitimacy deficit is the consequence of the inadequate political context and the inherent normative deficiencies of the applied model while the general election of judges was followed by unlawfulness and controversy. Thus, the legal framework of the general election of judges was unconstitutional and inadequate. The constitutional principle of permanent tenure of judges was annulled by the provisions of the Constitutional Act, while the legal gaps were interpreted at the detriment of judicial independence and autonomy. The High Judicial Council, which was unlawfully established, decided in an opaque manner and contrary to objective criteria for the election of judges. The general election of judges, according to all criteria and results, does not represent a good example of judicial reform.

• Details
• Contents