Amendments to the constitution in the area of judiciary in the candidate countries for the membership in the EU
the examples of Montenegro, Albania and Serbia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.60054/PEU.2020.7.119-134Keywords:
enlargement, accession talks, constitution, rule of law, judicial reform, Venice Commission, Western BalkanAbstract
In accordance with the obligations undertaken in the process of the accession to the European Union, the three candidate countries in the Western Balkans have initiated or undergone the process of changing their constitutional acts in order to align them with the requirements stemming from Chapter 23 Judiciary and Fundamental Rights. The paper aims to analyse how Montenegro and Serbia approached this commitment as an integral and essential part of the Action Plans for Chapter 23, while Albania did it as a part of the preparation of the country to receive the candidate status and the opening of accession talks. Subsequently, the paper shows that during the drafting process, the three states were guided by the standards defined by the Venice Commission in its opinions and proposals as well as the EC views received within consultative processes they have undertaken. It also points out the differences in the approach to the content of the changes by the European Union and the Venice Commission in the three cases. While Serbia still has to implement these changes, this paper also presents the diverse experience in Montenegro since 2013 and Albania since 2016 in relation to the implementation ofthe Constitutional amendments in practice and the effects it has had. Furthermore, the paper discusses the effects of the Constitutional reform in the light of the Enlargement Policy considering the latest developments and the fact that the Rule of Law is an essential part of these processes and the EU requirements. Finally, the paper concludes that the Venice Commission, invited by the European Commission, has provided the three states with its opinion guided both by technical, but also political principles, which, as an effect, has produced a diverse approach to how certain elements of the constitution treat the independence and autonomy of the judiciary within the process of integration in the EU.
References
Analysis of the Justice System in Albania by the Republic of Albania Assembly Ad Hoc Parliamentary Committee on Justice System Reform Group of High-Level Experts. (n.d.).
Annual Report on the Work of the Judicial Council and Total Balance in the Judiciary of Montenegro for 2018, SS/2019. (2019). Podgorica.
CDL-AD (2016)009 - European Commission for Democracy Through Law (Venice Commission) Albania - Final Opinion on the Revised Draft Constitutional Amendments on the Judiciary (Of 15 January 2016) of Albania Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 106 Plenary Session (Venice, 11-12 March 2016). (2016).
CDL-AD (2018)011-e - European Commission for Democracy Through Law (Venice Commission) Serbia Opinion on the draft amendments to the constitutional provisions on the judiciary, adopted by the Venice Commission at its 115th Plenary Session (Venice, 22-23 June 2018). (2018).
CDL-AD (2018)023-e - European Commission for Democracy Through Law (Venice Commission) Serbia - Secretariat memorandum - Compatibility of the draft amendments to the Constitutional Provisions on the Judiciary of Serbia, taken note of by the Venice Commission at its 116th Plenary Session (Venice, 19-20 October 2018). (2018).
CDL-AD (2018)034-e - European Commission for Democracy Through Law (Venice Commission) Albania Opinion on Draft Constitutional Amendments Enabling the Vetting of Politicians - Adopted by the Venice Commission, at its 117 Plenary Session (Venice, 14-15 December 2018). (2018).
CDL-AD(2013)029 - European Commission for Democracy Through Law (Venice Commission) Georgia, Opinion on three draft Constitutional Laws amending two constitutional Laws amending the Constitution of Georgia. (2013).
CDL-AD (2007)047) - European Commission for Democracy Through Law (Venice Commission) Montenegro, Opinion on the Constitution of Montenegro adopted by the Venice Commission at its 73 Plenary Session (Venice, 14-15 December 2007). (2007).
CDL(2012)051-e European Commission for Democracy Through Law (Venice Commission) Montenegro, Draft Opinion on two sets of draft amendments to the constitutional provisions relating to the judiciary of Montenegro. (2012).
CDL(2018)015-e European Commission for Democracy Through Law (Venice Commission) Montenegro - Draft Opinion on the draft law on amendments to the law on the Judicial Council and Judges. (2018).
CD (2009)168* - European Commission for Democracy Through Law (Venice Commission) - Final Report on Constitutional Amendment Procedures. (2009).
Coman, R. (2014). Quo Vadis Judicial Reforms? The Quest for Judicial Independence in Central and Eastern Europe. Europe-Asia Studies, 66(6), 920.
Commission Staff Working Document Albania 2015 Report Accompanying the Document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions (SWD(2015) 213 final). (2015). Brussels.
Commission Staff Working Document, Update on the Republic of Albania (SWD(2020) 46 final). (2020). Brussels.
Commission Staff Working Paper Montenegro 2011 Progress Report Accompanying the Document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2011–2012 (SEC (2011) 1204 final). (2011). Brussels.
Common Position of the EU - Accession negotiations with Serbia Chapter 23: Judiciary and fundamental rights (10074/16 ELARG 78). (2016). Brussels.
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2012–2013 COM (2012) 600 final. (2012). Brussels.
Conclusions of the European Council on 9 December 2011 (D/11/8). (2011). Brussels.
De Visser, M. (2015). A Critical Assessment of the Role of the Venice Commission in Processes of Domestic Constitutional Reform (Legal Studies Research Paper). Singapore Management University.
Draft Amendments to the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia. (n.d.).
Geyh, G. (2014). Judicial Independence as an Organizing Principle (Legal Studies Research Paper Series). Maurer School of Law, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Ginsburg, T., & Garoupa, N. (2008). The Comparative Law and Economics of Judicial Councils. Berkeley Journal of International Laws, 53. University of Chicago Law School, Berkeley.
Kosar, D. (2018). Beyond Judicial Councils: Forms, Rationales and Impact of Judicial Self-Governance in Europe. German Law Journal, 19(7).
Mendelski, M. (2018). Rule of Law (in Central and Eastern Europe). In Routledge Handbook of East European Politics (p. 120). Abingdon.
Montenegro Opinion on the Draft Law on Amendments to the Law on the Judicial Council and Judges. (2018, June 22–23). Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 115th Plenary Session.
Non-paper on the state of play regarding chapters 23 and 24 for Montenegro November 2019. (2019).
Parau, E. (2012). The Drive for Judicial Supremacy in Central and Eastern Europe. In A. Seibert-Fohr (Ed.), Judicial Independence in Transition-Strengthening the Rule of Law in the OSCE Region (p. 7). Springer.
Pejović, A. A. (2018). The New Approach of the European Union in Accession Negotiations - The Focus on Chapters 23 Judiciary and Fundamental Rights and 24 Justice, Freedom and Security. In Papers from the Fifth International Scientific Conference of the European Studies Department United We Stand Strong (p. 75). St. Kliment Ohridski University Press.
Predlog za promenu Ustava Republike Srbije. (n.d.). Tekst propisa.
Press release of the 111th meeting of the Parliamentary Committee for Constitutional and Legislative Issues. (n.d.).
Recommendation 1791 (2007), on the state of human rights and democracy in Europe. (2007). Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE).
Screening report Montenegro - Chapter 23 - Judiciary and fundamental rights (MD 281/12). (2012). Brussels.
Screening report Serbia, Chapter 23 - Judiciary and fundamental rights (MD45/14). (2014). Brussels.
The Constitution of Albania. (2016). Official Journal of the Republic of Albania, 76/2016. Tirana.
The Constitution of Montenegro. (2013). Official Journal of Montenegro 38/2013. Podgorica.
The Constitution of Serbia. (2006). Official Journal of the Republic of Serbia, 98/2006. Beograd.
The Law on the Judicial Council and the Judges. (2018). Official Journal of Montenegro, No 42/2018.
Predlog za promenu Ustava Republike Srbije. (n.d.). Tekst propisa.
Press release of the 111th meeting of the Parliamentary Committee for Constitutional and Legislative Issues. (n.d.).
Recommendation 1791 (2007), on the state of human rights and democracy in Europe. (2007). Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE).
Screening report Montenegro - Chapter 23 - Judiciary and fundamental rights (MD 281/12). (2012). Brussels.
Screening report Serbia, Chapter 23 - Judiciary and fundamental rights (MD45/14). (2014). Brussels.
The Constitution of Albania. (2016). Official Journal of the Republic of Albania, 76/2016. Tirana.
The Constitution of Montenegro. (2013). Official Journal of Montenegro 38/2013. Podgorica.
The Constitution of Serbia. (2006). Official Journal of the Republic of Serbia, 98/2006. Beograd.
The Law on the Judicial Council and the Judges. (2018). Official Journal of Montenegro, No 42/2018.
Van Dijk, P. (2017). The Venice Commission on Certain Aspects of the European Convention of Human Rights Ratione Personae. In S. Breitenmoser et al. (Eds.), Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law: Liber Amicorum Luzius Wildhaber (p. 183). (Through S. Schmahl & M. Breuer, The Council of Europe: Its Law and Policies (p. 743). Oxford University Press).
Volpe, V. (2017). Commissione Europea per la Democrazia attraverso il Diritto (Commissione di Venezia). Uted Giuridica, Milano.
