ZAGREB, March 15 (Hina) - The Croatian Constitutional Court on Wednesday rescinded several provisions and parts of provisions of the Law on the State Judicial Council, pertaining to the appointment and dismissal of court presidents,
and the disciplinary accountability of the president in performing tasks of judicial administration in proceedings before the Judicial Council. Explaining the decision, the Constitutional Court said there was no constitutional basis for extending the Council's jurisdiction to proceedings for the dismissal of its own members. Comparing the constitutional and legal provision, the Court came to the conclusion that the disputed Law had extended the Council's jurisdiction to the appointment and dismissal of presidents of courts, for which the legislator had no constitutional foundation, nor had envisaged this authority by the Law itself, the Constitutional Court sa
ZAGREB, March 15 (Hina) - The Croatian Constitutional Court on
Wednesday rescinded several provisions and parts of provisions of
the Law on the State Judicial Council, pertaining to the
appointment and dismissal of court presidents, and the
disciplinary accountability of the president in performing tasks
of judicial administration in proceedings before the Judicial
Council.
Explaining the decision, the Constitutional Court said there was no
constitutional basis for extending the Council's jurisdiction to
proceedings for the dismissal of its own members.
Comparing the constitutional and legal provision, the Court came to
the conclusion that the disputed Law had extended the Council's
jurisdiction to the appointment and dismissal of presidents of
courts, for which the legislator had no constitutional foundation,
nor had envisaged this authority by the Law itself, the
Constitutional Court said in a statement.
The provision according to which the State Judicial Council may, at
the suggestion of the Parliament's House of Counties, appoint the
president of the Supreme Court, is deemed as contrary to the
Constitution by the Constitutional Court, because this authority
of the House of Counties had not been regulated by the Constitution
and any extension of its authority by law is also contrary to the
Constitution.
It is the stance of the Constitutional Court that the Judicial
Council may decide only about the disciplinary accountability of
judges in the performance of their judicial tasks, while there is no
constitutional foundation for the legal extension of the Council's
authority on disciplinary accountability of court presidents.
It thus stands that the State Judicial Council may decide on the
disciplinary accountability of court presidents only in their
performance of judicial tasks.
(hina) lml mm