ZAGREB, Nov 6 (Hina) - Croatia's Supreme Court believes that segments of draft amendments to the Constitution referring to the judiciary, infringe the independence of the judicial system. "Most (proposals) intensify the power and
clout of dominant political structures on the entire judiciary, instead of offering better solutions in comparison to the Constitution which is now effective, so that they may strengthen the autonomy of the judiciary and prevent the executive and legislative authorities from exerting possible influence," the Court's head Marijan Ramuscak said at a session which the court held on Monday. Present at the session were the State Judicial Council's head Ante Potrebica and heads of the appeal courts. For them it is an act of interference if, according to a draft amendment, the national parliament's House of Representatives will appoint the Supreme Court's President. They d
ZAGREB, Nov 6 (Hina) - Croatia's Supreme Court believes that
segments of draft amendments to the Constitution referring to the
judiciary, infringe the independence of the judicial system.
"Most (proposals) intensify the power and clout of dominant
political structures on the entire judiciary, instead of offering
better solutions in comparison to the Constitution which is now
effective, so that they may strengthen the autonomy of the
judiciary and prevent the executive and legislative authorities
from exerting possible influence," the Court's head Marijan
Ramuscak said at a session which the court held on Monday.
Present at the session were the State Judicial Council's head Ante
Potrebica and heads of the appeal courts.
For them it is an act of interference if, according to a draft
amendment, the national parliament's House of Representatives will
appoint the Supreme Court's President.
They did not support a solution that this lower house should appoint
state prosecutors, and added that in such case they (state
prosecutors) should be excluded from the judicial authorities.
Judges in particular criticised a proposal that the State Judicial
Council should acquire the opinion of the competent committee of
the House of Representatives during the process of appointing or
reliving judges from duty. They viewed this suggestion as the
direct interference in the judicial system's work.
The courts' heads do not agree with a proposal that besides a judge,
a state prosecutor or lawyer or professor at law school who have
worked ten years in the field of law, can become the Supreme Court's
President. They maintain that only a judge can be at the helm of the
Supreme Court.
The DSV head Potrebica said it was incredible that experts were not
consulted about decisions on constitutional changes referring to
the judiciary, and he described the proposed amendments as an
attempt of the executive and legislative authorities to gradually
take control over th judicial authorities.
"The proposal lays the legal foundations for political
appointments of the courts' presidents and for possibilities that
the incumbent authorities exert the political supervision over
judges," he added.
(hina) jn ms