REPUBLIC OF SERBIA
NATIONAL JUDICIAL REFORM STRATEGY
MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
JULY 2005
NATIONAL JUDICIAL REFORM STRATEGY
SUMMARY
[To be completed for final draft]
DRAFT
-2-
REPUBLIC OF SERBIA
NATIONAL JUDICIAL REFORM STRATEGY
CONTENTS
I.
BACKGROUND
A. Introduction
B. Guiding Principles
C. The Need for Reform
II.
ORGANIZATION
A. Structure
B. Implementation
III.
JUDICIAL REFORM FRAMEWORK
A. Overview
B. An Independent Judicial System
1. Self-Governing Structure
2. Independent Budget Authority
3. Rule and Policy-making Authority
C. A Transparent Judicial System
1. Open Judicial Selection, Promotion & Discipline Process
2. Appropriate Access to Court Proceedings
3. Improved Public Outreach & Participation
D. An Accountable Judicial System
1. Clear Judicial Productivity & Performance Standards
2. Effective Court Administration & Management
3. Effective Use of Judicial and Prosecutorial Resources
E. An Efficient Judicial System
1. Improved Access to Justice
2. Standardized Training & Education
3. Modern Court Network
IV.
REFORM OF JUDICIARY-RELATED INSTITUTIONS
A. Ministry of Justice
B. Prosecutors
C. Penal System
V.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
A. Rationale
B. Performance Indicators
DRAFT
-3-
REPUBLIC OF SERBIA
NATIONAL JUDICIAL REFORM STRATEGY
I.
BACKGROUND
A.
INTRODUCTION
The Government of the Republic of Serbia has committed itself to a reform program to
achieve a more effective, responsive, and modern judiciary. The reform program promotes
the rights of all citizens, including equal treatment under the law, access to justice and due
process.
The National Judicial Reform Strategy sets forth the challenges facing Serbia’s judiciary within
the framework of four guiding principles and corresponding goals. A separate
Implementation Plan outlines the specific steps needed to achieve those goals.
B.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
An effective justice system is based on fundamental principles that provide the framework
for the design, development and organization of all judicial institutions. A judicial system
that is fully responsive to the rights and interests of all citizens will seek to further these core
principles at every stage of development.
The four guiding principles are independence, transparency, accountability, and efficiency.
This Strategy will apply these guiding principles to achieve:




C.
A judicial system that is independent;
A judicial system that is transparent;
A judicial system that is accountable; and
A judicial system that is efficient.
THE NEED FOR REFORM
There is compelling justification for implementing strategic reform at every level of the
Republic’s judicial system in support of these four guiding principles.
The need for reform has been repeatedly expressed by individual citizens in complaints
concerning excessive delays, procedural uncertainty and corruption. In the previous four
years various assessments and analysis have detailed a number of operational and
organizational weaknesses:






DRAFT
A governance structure which causes the judiciary to depend on the Ministry of Justice,
impeding the judiciary’s organizational and managerial independence;
A lack of integrated planning, budgeting and performance measurement capacities, reducing
the judiciary’s ability to effectively monitor and improve system performance;
A complicated framework of regulations and policy bodies, contributing to organizational
confusion and redundancy, and reducing the accountability of judicial bodies;
Outmoded staffing levels and hiring practices that are not clearly connected with system
workloads, hampering effective justice administration and case processing;
Unclear performance, selection and disciplinary standards for judges, resulting in
inconsistent judicial effectiveness and reducing public trust in the judicial profession;
Onerous administrative burdens on senior judges, reducing judicial efficiency and
lowering morale in the judiciary’s ranks;
-4-
REPUBLIC OF SERBIA
NATIONAL JUDICIAL REFORM STRATEGY






Insufficient training for judges and court staff, hindering the development of a modern
and professional staff specializing in judiciary management and administration;
A lack of practical and judiciary-focused education in the law faculties, contributing to a
lack of preparation for the future leaders in the legal community and the judiciary;
An overly complex and extended system of courts and supporting offices, resulting in higher
than necessary operating costs and less efficient citizen services;
Poorly equipped and maintained facilities, restricting access to justice and straining the
judiciary’s resources;
An overcrowded and outdated penal system, which does not effectively encourage
rehabilitation or satisfy international standards of humane treatment; and
Underutilization of information technology and automated systems, resulting in the
continued use of inefficient and labor-intensive administrative practices.
These weaknesses, several of which are noted by the reform priorities communicated by the
European Commission and the Council of Europe, must be addressed if the Republic’s
judiciary is to more responsively, efficiently and fairly serve the interests of all of its citizens.
II.
ORGANIZATION
A.
STRUCTURE
The Judicial Reform Strategy focuses on Serbia’s court system, including the courts of
general and special jurisdiction, and the supporting legal framework. It also addresses, to a
limited extent, the Ministry of Justice, the prosecutorial and penal systems, and the law
faculties given their influence on the judicial system.
The Strategy’s Judicial Reform Framework, presented in Section III, outlines the primary
goals and outcomes necessary for the achievement of a modern and efficient justice system.
The primary reform goals for judiciary related organizations, including the Ministry of
Justice, the prosecutors, and the penal system, are included in Section IV.
Section V details the performance standards that will measure the progress of the Republic’s
judicial reform efforts. A separate Implementation Plan details the specific timeframes,
sequencing, implementing bodies, and estimated costs associated with each goal defined
within the Strategy.
B.
IMPLEMENTATION
The Ministry of Justice, High Judicial Council and the Supreme Court, together with the
Judiciary Committee of the National Assembly, are responsible for supervising reforms
presented in the Strategy. Implementation coordination will be delegated to a Strategy
Coordination Commission, which will consist of nine representatives from the judiciary and
legal community. The Commission membership, which will include one representative from
both the Judges’ Association and the Prosecutors’ Association, will be jointly selected by the
Minister of Justice and the Supreme Court President and approved by the Judiciary
Committee of the National Assembly. The Commission’s members will be appointed for
renewable two-year terms.
Every three months the Strategy Coordination Commission will inform the Minister of
Justice and the Supreme Court President in writing of progress on implementation and
pending issues. Every six months the Strategy Coordination Commission is required to
DRAFT
-5-
REPUBLIC OF SERBIA
NATIONAL JUDICIAL REFORM STRATEGY
inform the Prime Minister and the Parliament, in writing, of related progress and pending
issues. Every year the Strategy Coordination Commission will submit a report to the
Parliament summarizing progress on the Strategy's implementation.
III.
JUDICIAL REFORM FRAMEWORK
A.
OVERVIEW
The Republic’s Judicial Reform Framework can be divided into 12 fundamental reform
goals, three of which fall under each core principle. Collectively and individually, these
reform goals and their associated initiatives address the main challenges facing the judiciary
today.
The Judicial Reform Framework is summarized in the below table, and detailed in the
following sections. Each goal is presented with a summary description of the current
situation, the vision for a new judiciary, and the primary steps supporting the reform goals.
The reforms are grouped according to short- (2006-2007), medium-(2008-2010) and longterm (2011-2013) implementation timeframes.
JUDICIAL REFORM FRAMEWORK
INDEPENDENCE
TRANSPARENCY
ACCOUNTABILITY
EFFICIENCY
Self-Governing Structure
Open Judicial Selection,
Promotion & Discipline
Processes
Appropriate Access to
Court Records &
Proceedings
Enhanced Public
Outreach & Participation
Clear Judicial
Productivity &
Performance Standards
Effective Court
Administration &
Management
Effective Use of Judicial
& Prosecutorial
Resources
Improved Access to
Justice
Independent Budget
Authority
Independent Policy &
Rule-Making Authority
B.
AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIAL SYSTEM
1.
Self-Governing Structure
Standardized System for
Education & Training
Modern Court Network
Current Situation: The management of Serbia’s judicial system is currently led by the
Minister of Justice, with the Supreme Court president; various court presidents; the High
Judicial Council; the High Personnel Council; and the Supervisory Council performing
overlapping roles. The judicial system thus lacks a unified and independent executive
management framework, creating an administrative dependence on the Ministry of Justice
that extends throughout the court and prosecutorial systems.
Vision for the New Judiciary: In order to respect the principle of an independent judiciary,
governance responsibility for the court system will shift from the Ministry of Justice to the
judicial system. A phased transfer of governance responsibility will begin January 1, 2008,
and be completed by 2011. Further, by transferring such authority, the Ministry of Justice
will focus its limited resources more effectively on its core functions. A reorganized High
Judicial Council, operating with qualified majority voting requirements on important issues,
DRAFT
-6-
REPUBLIC OF SERBIA
NATIONAL JUDICIAL REFORM STRATEGY
will be designated as the management and oversight body for the judiciary. The High
Judicial Council members will be organized into two commissions, one focused on the
judiciary, and one focused on the prosecutors. Other regular or ad-hoc commissions
supporting the Council’s work can be established as appropriate. The High Judicial Council
will be supported by an Administrative Office for the judiciary. The director of the
Administrative Office will report to the High Judicial Council.
Short-Term Reforms
2006-2007
High Judicial Council designated
the future oversight body for the
judiciary.
High Judicial Council’s
composition amended by law.
Plan developed for new
Administrative Office under the
High Judicial Council.
Medium Term Reforms
2008-2010
Long-Term Reforms
2011-2013
High Judicial Council assumes
limited oversight responsibility for
the judiciary.
New members elected for the
High Judicial Council.
Administrative Office staff
positions created, training begins
for new staff.
High Judicial Council assumes full
oversight and management
responsibility for the judiciary.
New High Judicial Council
members elected.
Administrative Office fully
operational.
FUTURE STRUCTURE OF THE JUDICIARY
Legislature
Judiciary
National
NationalAssembly
Assembly
Executive
Supreme
SupremeCourt
Court
Constitutional
ConstitutionalCourt
Court
Government
Government
High
HighJudicial
JudicialCouncil
Council
Ministry
Ministryof
ofJustice
Justice
Administrative
AdministrativeOffice
Office
Prosecutors
Prosecutors
Specialized Courts
General Courts
Appeals
AppealsCourts
Courts
Administrative
AdministrativeCourt
Court
District
DistrictCourts
Courts
High
HighCommercial
CommercialCourt
Court
High
HighMagistrate
MagistrateCourt
Court
Commercial
CommercialCourts
Courts
Magistrate
MagistrateCourts
Courts
Municipal
MunicipalCourts
Courts
Penal
PenalSystem
System
2.
Independent Budget Authority
Current Situation: While courts have a degree of influence in the budget formulation
process today, the Ministry of Finance, and the Ministry of Justice, control the budget
definition, allocation, and execution authority for the Republic’s court system. The budget
authority is therefore removed from those who are most informed and aware of competing
requirements and operational priorities, limiting independence and effective budgetary
distribution.
Vision for the New Judiciary: Achieving an independent judiciary requires authorizing the
judicial system to exercise independent budget authority. The High Judicial Council will be
authorized to approve and apportion the budget for the judicial system, in conjunction with
the Republic’s Treasury and the Ministry of Finance, with final budgetary approval made by
the Parliament. Authority for budget development, approval and accounting will be
gradually transferred from the Ministry of Justice to the High Judicial Council to ensure a
smooth transition of budgeting authority.
Short-Term Reforms
2006-2007
DRAFT
Medium Term Reforms
2008-2010
-7-
Long-Term Reforms
2011-2013
REPUBLIC OF SERBIA
NATIONAL JUDICIAL REFORM STRATEGY
High Judicial Council designated
as the future authority for the
judiciary’s budget.
Plan developed for a new
judiciary budget process.
3.
High Judicial Council assumes
authority for judicial salaries and
material costs.
Judiciary budget process begins
shifting to new model.
High Judicial Council assumes
authority for the judiciary’s
budget.
New judiciary budget process
completed.
Independent Policy & Rule-Making Authority
Current Situation: Judicial and prosecutorial system policy-making authority rests largely
with the Ministry of Justice, restricting the courts’ ability to address and respond to
operational weaknesses, and diminishing the direct accountability of judicial institutions.
Court procedural rule-making responsibility also currently resides with the Ministry of
Justice. The exercise of this authority permits the Executive power to exercise significant
control over the judiciary’s administrative processes and structure. Within the judiciary
itself, a number of disparate policy-bodies, including the High Personnel Council, the
Supervisory Council, and the Commission for Judicial Reform, supervise specific policy
areas.
Vision for the New Judiciary: The judicial system will exercise independent policy- and
rule-making authority through an empowered High Judicial Council. With the authority for
rule-making transferred from the Ministry of Justice, the High Judicial Council will
supervise management and administrative policies and procedures, permitting the
judiciary’s leadership to respond more quickly to the needs of the court system and improve
the effectiveness of case management and court performance. The High Judicial Council,
supported by the new Administrative Office for the judiciary, will unify judiciary policymaking by assuming the responsibilities of the Personnel and Supervisory Councils.
Short-Term Reforms
2006-2007
High Judicial Council designated
as the future rule-making body for
the judiciary.
Plan developed for unification of
policy-making authority for
judiciary.
Medium Term Reforms
2008-2010
High Judicial Council assumes
partial rule-making authority for
the judiciary.
Other judiciary-policy bodies
begin transferring authority to
High Judicial Council.
Long-Term Reforms
2011-2013
High Judicial Council assumes full
rule-making authority for the
judiciary.
Judiciary-policy making unified
under the High Judicial Council.
C.
A TRANSPARENT JUDICIAL SYSTEM
1.
Open Judicial Selection, Promotion & Discipline Processes
Current Situation: Before 2001, the appointment of judges and prosecutors was often based
on political allegiances and personal relationships, and judges and prosecutors who resisted
political pressure and intimidation were often disciplined or removed from office. The High
Judicial and High Personnel Councils mitigate such problems, but interference and
manipulation are still possible given that the selection, promotion, discipline, and dismissal
processes are closed and not sufficiently subject to public scrutiny.
Vision for the New Judiciary: The process of vetting judicial and prosecutorial candidates
by the High Judicial Council and the Parliament will be transparent, in accordance with
clear written standards, and allow public review. After the adoption of the new
Constitution, judges and prosecutors will be appointed for an initial five year period, after
which they will be reappointed based on fair performance. Disciplinary and dismissal
actions against judges enforced by the High Judicial Council will be more transparent and in
accordance with objective criteria, encouraging greater public confidence in the judiciary. In
DRAFT
-8-
REPUBLIC OF SERBIA
NATIONAL JUDICIAL REFORM STRATEGY
the long-term, judicial appointees will be nominated by an 11-member Judicial Nominating
Commission. Parliament would then appoint candidates recommended by the Commission.
Short-Term Reforms
2006-2007
Transition plan for new
management structure of
selection, promotion and
disciplinary processes prepared.
Revisions to judicial selection,
promotion and disciplinary
criteria and processes proposed.
Judicial Nominating Commission
structure and organization
proposed.
2.
Medium Term Reforms
2008-2010
High Judicial Council replaces
High Personnel Council in
supervising disciplinary actions
against judges.
Revised policy guidelines for
judicial selection, promotion and
disciplinary actions approved by
the High Judicial Council and
Parliament.
Judicial Nominating Commission
established by law, and members
appointed.
Long-Term Reforms
2011-2013
High Judicial Council assumes full
responsibility for selection
promotion and disciplinary issues.
Revised procedure for nominating
judges to Parliament adopted
Judicial Nominating Commission
begins recommending
appointments to the National
Assembly.
Appropriate Access to Court Proceedings
Current Situation: Access to case records is restricted to litigants, counsel, and others on a
need-to-know basis. Restricted access protects litigant privacy but constrains public and
media access to government processes. Given the history of the former regime, which
manipulated judges and prosecutors for political results against a backdrop of secrecy,
public access is an important social value. Although the media and public now have limited
access to court proceedings, lack of access to records and court information hinders public
understanding and objective media reporting.
Vision for the New Judiciary: The public will be granted access to case information and
court decisions while preserving litigant privacy to promote transparency and foster
improved public perceptions of courts, judges, and the adjudicative process. Automated
systems in courts available to citizens will, in particular, improve public access to case
information. Speculation and inaccurate reporting by the media will be reduced, improving
public understanding and confidence in the judiciary.
Short-Term Reforms
2006-2007
Existing rules and procedures on
access to court information
reviewed and primary weaknesses
identified.
Supreme Court opinions scanned
into a database, with access
provided to judges, the media,
and the public.
3.
Medium Term Reforms
2008-2010
Court rules and procedures
revised to promote public access
to court proceedings.
Database of Supreme Court
decisions installed in law faculties
and public libraries.
Long-Term Reforms
2011-2013
An independent survey identifies
additional reforms supporting
greater public access to court
information.
Appeals Courts decisions added to
database, additional public access
points installed.
Enhanced Public Outreach & Participation
Current Situation: Formal citizen complaints against the judiciary are substantial and rising.
There exists, both within the general public and the ranks of the judiciary itself, a measure of
apprehension concerning the judicial profession. Additionally, there is a public perception
that the Ministry of Justice and the courts are operationally connected. Further, many
citizens do not fully understand the role and function of courts, judges, and prosecutors in a
democratic society. The consequence is reluctance to utilize the courts to asserts their rights
DRAFT
-9-
REPUBLIC OF SERBIA
NATIONAL JUDICIAL REFORM STRATEGY
and seek redress under civil or criminal law – and doubt and distrust of the Republic’s
judicial bodies.
Vision for the New Judiciary: Recognizing that the strength and vitality of the judicial
system depends on citizens who understand and support its role, the judicial system will
proactively educate the public and the media to understand its role and functions, reversing
the poor image that many have of judges and the court system. The establishment of public
relations offices in the Supreme Court and major urban courts will ensure more pro-active
communications with the public and the media. The Supreme Court, and in time all lower
courts, will utilize an automated system to carefully track and respond to citizen complaints.
Short-Term Reforms
2006-2007
Public Relations Office and
Information Desk established in
the Supreme Court.
A single mechanism for recording
all judicial system complaints is
established.
Medium Term Reforms
2008-2010
Public Relations Offices and
Information Desks established in
major courts.
Judicial system complaints are
collected and assessed in an
annual summary report.
Long-Term Reforms
2011-2013
All courts equipped with public
relations officers and information
desks.
Supreme Court’s annual report
integrates annual summary report
of citizen complaints.
D.
AN ACCOUNTABLE JUDICIAL SYSTEM
1.
Clear Judicial Productivity and Performance Standards
Current Situation: Neither the Ministry of Justice nor the courts have the ability to
accurately assess judicial productivity and court system performance. Lacking uniform
standards and regularly updated statistical information at both the system-wide and the
individual court level, the judiciary’s leaders are unable to adequately assess the
performance of court systems or the 2,400 judges serving in the individual courts. This
deficiency impedes effective control over the judiciary's performance.
Vision for the New Judiciary: In cooperation with the Ministry of Justice, the High Judicial
Council will oversee the redesign of the process, methodology, and standards for the
preparation and transmission of judicial and court productivity statistics to achieve
maximum accuracy and consistency, and conform with the best practices identified by the
Council of Europe and other international bodies. Specifically, a system will be introduced
that allows for both system-wide judicial productivity monitoring and monitoring by court
presidents of individual judge performance.
Short-Term Reforms
2006-2007
Criteria for assessing judicial
productivity reviewed by the High
Judicial Council.
New judicial productivity data
systems tested in Commercial and
general jurisdiction courts.
DRAFT
Medium Term Reforms
2008-2010
High Judicial Council assumes
Supervisory Council’s
responsibility for reviewing
judicial productivity.
A uniform data collection system
is initiated throughout all courts,
with training for court staff.
- 10 -
Long-Term Reforms
2011-2013
All judges held accountable to a
revised standard of judicial
productivity with regular
performance reviews.
National judicial productivity data
system is fully functional.
REPUBLIC OF SERBIA
NATIONAL JUDICIAL REFORM STRATEGY
2.
Effective Court Administration and Management
Current Situation: Most judges and staff have little training in case management practices.
They are also constrained by rules and procedures that require senior judges to spend large
amounts of their time on administrative issues, diverting their time and expertise to nonjudicial matters and directly contributing to the serious case backlogs facing the Republic’s
courts. Additionally, scheduling practices impede efficient case processing and
inconvenience parties. Moreover, existing case management systems are based almost
exclusively on time and labor-intensive manual collection and entry practices that are
inefficient, costly and diminish both transparency and feedback.
Vision for the New Judiciary: Through case management automation, revised scheduling
procedures and new professional positions, senior judges and court presidents will have
greater time to focus on their adjudicatory functions. Court administration tasks will be
performed by an increasingly professional cadre of court administrators and new judicial
staff. The general jurisdiction courts will follow the example of the Commercial Courts,
which, with help from the international community, are already making significant progress
in improving their administrative capacity and improving case processing efficiency.
Short-Term Reforms
2006-2007
New professional staffing
positions in court administration
identified and proposed.
Scheduling changes proposed to
reduce average case duration.
Commercial Courts develop case
management automation system.
Select Municipal and District
Courts modernize internal IT
systems.
Plan proposed transferring service
of process to the private sector.
Commercial Courts conduct
weighted caseload analysis to
refine staffing requirements.
3.
Medium Term Reforms
2008-2010
Long-Term Reforms
2011-2013
New professional court
administration positions created.
Courts fully staffed with new
court administrators.
New calendaring changes
implemented in select courts.
Automated case management
system installed in select
Commercial Courts.
General jurisdiction courts
automate case management and
integrate IT networks.
Transfer begins of service of
process responsibility to the
private sector.
Modifications to Commercial
Court staffing levels, and select
other courts, based on weighted
caseload analysis.
New calendaring system
implemented in all courts.
Commercial Courts complete full
automation and system
integration.
Scanning begins of key case
documents as the initial step to
electronic case files.
Service of process responsibility
transferred to private sector.
General jurisdiction courts modify
staffing levels based on weighted
caseload analysis.
Effective Use of Judicial and Prosecutorial Resources
Current Situation: Criminal case processing follows the inquisitorial model in which
investigative judges work with police and prosecutors to conduct criminal investigations
and collect evidence. This model is increasingly regarded as inefficient and time consuming
because of the redundant judicial resources it requires and the inferior role it assigns to the
prosecution. Moreover, because plea bargaining is not allowed, criminal case processing is
backlogged and subject to repeated delays.
Vision for the New Judiciary: Noting that inquisitorial systems have been replaced in
several neighboring countries with more efficient and less-resource-intensive adversarial
systems, and the “reasonable time” requirement stipulated by Article 6 of the European
Convention for Human Rights, the Republic will gradually shift to a system that limits the
roles of the investigative judges. Specifically, prosecutors will assume responsibility for
collecting evidence to ensure more efficient criminal case processing. Additionally, to
DRAFT
- 11 -
REPUBLIC OF SERBIA
NATIONAL JUDICIAL REFORM STRATEGY
address criminal case backlogs and delay, prosecutors will be permitted to employ judicially
supervised plea bargaining.
Short-Term Reforms
2006-2007
Medium Term Reforms
2008-2010
Long-Term Reforms
2011-2013
Narrowed scope of investigative
judges proposed through revised
legal framework.
New legal framework proposed to
enable plea bargaining.
Narrowed scope of investigative
judges approved by law,,
prosecutor's assume new role.
Plea bargaining training begins for
judges, prosecutors and attorneys.
Investigative judges and
prosecutors performing roles in
accordance with best practices.
Plea bargaining takes effect in the
Republic’s courts, criminal
procedure more efficient.
E.
AN EFFICIENT JUDICIAL SYSTEM
1.
Improved Access to Justice
Current Situation: Access to justice is restricted by limited legal aid and poor dissemination
of legal and court related information. And with government revenues for justice
administration limited, efforts to collect court services fees and consolidate service locations
may further restrict access to justice. The result: the Republic’s citizens who most need
assistance and access to justice are often underserved or neglected by the current judicial
process and related services.
Vision for the New Judiciary: In the future, the judiciary must consistently promote equal
access to justice for all, including indigent citizens, through more concentrated and effective
legal aid programs. A centralized legal aid body will oversee more effective assistance to
defendants in civil and criminal cases, and authorize a standardized means test for all
litigants. A systematic and well-publicized alternative dispute resolution (ADR) programs,
hosted and promoted by the Center for ADR, under the supervision of the High Judicial
Council, will ensure alternative avenues for justice service delivery are available to needy
citizens.
Short-Term Reforms
2006-2007
Medium Term Reforms
2008-2010
Legal aid system reviewed,
systematic reform proposed.
Institutional support for legal aid
centralized under one body.
Existing Center for ADR programs
reviewed and additional programs
proposed.
Center for ADR receives approval
from High Judicial Council to
expand programs.
2.
Long-Term Reforms
2011-2013
Legal aid for civil and criminal
cases provided based on clear
means test.
Center for ADR begins
comprehensive national courtannexed program.
Standardized System for Education & Training
Current Status: Over the last several years, responsibility for judicial education and training
has largely been assumed by NGOs and the Judicial Training Center (JTC). Due to a lack of
resources, currently there is no standard core curriculum for judicial and staff training. In
general, current training efforts are inadequate, both for new and experienced judges and
staff. And the curriculum at the law faculties, while improving over the last few years, does
not sufficiently emphasize practical skills clinics and training for the judiciary’s future
leaders and legal practitioners.
Vision for the New Judiciary: Noting that judicial training organizations in other countries
are often supported by the government and supervised either by the Justice Ministry or a
judicial council, the Government of the Republic will formally establish a national Judicial
DRAFT
- 12 -
REPUBLIC OF SERBIA
NATIONAL JUDICIAL REFORM STRATEGY
Training Institute. This state-supported institution will administer a standardized and
ongoing program of education and training for judicial officers, prosecutors and related
personnel. In the long-term, all candidate judges, prosecutors and court staff will apply for
entrance in the national Judicial Training Institute as the first step in becoming judicial or
prosecutorial office holders, and reducing political influence in the judicial selection process.
Additionally, law faculties will strengthen the department for the judiciary, and expand
clinical and practical training for future legal professionals and leaders of the judiciary.
Short-Term Reforms
2006-2007
Medium Term Reforms
2008-2010
High Judicial Council and
Ministry of Justice approve a plan
for a national Judicial Training
Institute.
International assistance for the
new Judicial Training Institute
facility is secured.
Ministry, High Judicial Council
and law faculties agree on design
of new curriculum and judiciary
departments.
Judicial Training Institute
established, training begins for
new and current judges and
prosecutors.
New curriculum for new and
experienced judges & prosecutors
developed.
Law faculties strengthen judiciary
departments and offer additional
practical training opportunities.
3.
Long-Term Reforms
2011-2013
Judicial Training Institute begins
comprehensive training for all
new and current judges,
prosecutors and court staff.
New curriculum for court staff
developed and adopted.
First students trained by new
curriculums graduate and begin
preparing for careers in judiciary
and the Bar.
A Modern Court Network
Current Status: Currently, there are currently 187 special and general jurisdiction courts in
the country, with several large urban courts accounting for the vast majority of cases, while
a number of courts in different regions feature minimal caseloads. Additionally, the
Supreme Court is burdened with a large number of cases. The consequence is that the
overall court system is imbalanced by an overly complex and costly network of facilities that
does not reflect the actual workload or current needs of the Republic’s judiciary.
Vision for the New Judiciary: To address budgetary constraints and strengthen the
judiciary’s structure and administration, underutilized or severely outdated facilities or
courts should be abandoned or combined with other facilities. This will allow the judiciary
to reduce operating costs, improve serviceability, and more directly align budgetary
resources with workload demands. The Supreme Court, following the creation of the Courts
of Appeals in 2007, will have a more limited jurisdiction, allowing the judiciary’s leaders to
adjudicate on cases of particular importance.
Short-Term Reforms
2006-2007
Primary capital investments
required for major urban courts
identified.
List of judiciary facilities to be
closed or merged proposed.
Supreme Court completes
transition plan for amending its
jurisdiction and structure.
DRAFT
Medium Term Reforms
2008-2010
International assistance secured
for capital investments in major
urban courts.
High Judicial Council approves
list of facilities to be closed and
merged.
Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is
amended with the establishment
of the Courts of Appeals.
- 13 -
Long-Term Reforms
2011-2013
Construction completed of new
court facilities.
Select facilities and courts merged
or closed.
Supreme Court and other
judiciary offices move into
renovated facilities in Belgrade.
REPUBLIC OF SERBIA
NATIONAL JUDICIAL REFORM STRATEGY
IV.
REFORM OF JUDICIARY-RELATED INSTITUTIONS
A.
MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
In advance of the formal transfer of judicial system oversight to the High Judicial Council on
January 1, 2008, the Ministry of Justice will provide the relevant bodies of the judiciary with
support in preparing for the transition in authority and supporting administrative
structures. This support will be detailed in the Implementation Plan for the Strategy.
The implementation of the judicial reform framework presented in this Strategy will restore
the focus of the Ministry of Justice on the primary functions of legislative reform and legal
issues, governing of the prison system, and administrative oversight of the prosecutors.
In tandem with the shift of the judicial system oversight responsibilities, the Ministry of
Justice will commission a detailed reform plan in 2006 that will enable the realigning of
resources and staff to better serve the Republic’s citizenry. The reform plan will be followed
by a formal legislative reform proposal, to be presented in 2007 by the Government of the
Republic after public review, that will complement the formal shift of judiciary oversight
responsibilities to the High Judicial Council.
Short-Term Reforms
2006-2007
Reform plan realigning the
Ministry of Justice’s staffing and
organization developed.
B.
Medium Term Reforms
2008-2010
Reform plan for Ministry of Justice
approved by the Government.
Long-Term Reforms
2011-2013
Ministry of Justice’s new staffing
and organizational structure
completed.
PROSECUTORS
The Republic’s prosecutors perform a vital and necessary role enforcing and upholding the
criminal laws of the state. The reform of the judiciary presents an important opportunity to
improve the autonomy, accountability and effectiveness of the prosecutors, who by law
work closely with judicial and law enforcement staff.
The judicial reform framework will influence the position of prosecutors in two specific
respects. First, the limiting of the role of investigative judges in court proceedings will
enable the prosecutors to play a more direct role in the judicial process. This enhanced role,
which includes assuming a greater role in collecting evidence and participating in the
conduct of criminal cases, will take full effect in the medium-term period (2008-2010).
Procedural reform and additional training for all prosecutors will be required.
Second, prosecutors will also be granted greater autonomy in accordance with clearer
productivity and effectiveness criteria which will meet objective quality standards and be
free from political interference. Fundamentally, prosecutors must be able to perform their
important functions with the greatest autonomy possible while under the administrative
supervision by the Minister of Justice, on behalf of the Government of the Republic.
In order to ensure the necessary steps are taken in both areas, the High Judicial Council and
the Ministry of Justice will authorize an action plan in 2006 that will ensure appropriate
initiatives and procedural reform in order to prepare the prosecutors for their new role and
productivity review process in advance of January 1, 2008.
DRAFT
- 14 -
REPUBLIC OF SERBIA
NATIONAL JUDICIAL REFORM STRATEGY
Short-Term Reforms
2006-2007
New Law adopted and new role of
prosecutors established by law,
clear performance criteria
adopted.
C.
Medium Term Reforms
2008-2010
Prosecutors receive training for
expanded role in evidentiary
collection and case management.
Long-Term Reforms
2011-2013
Additional training programs for
prosecutors established in order to
enable them to work in accordance
with best practice, criminal
procedure more efficient.
PENAL SYSTEM
The penal system, which includes 34 prisons holding over 8,100 prisoners, faces many
problems after years of a lack of investment and outdated legislation. The prisoner rate per
population is high in Serbia compared to other countries in the region partly because there
has been minimal use of non-custodial sentences. This has led to overcrowding and
increased costs. Prisoners are not held in conditions in line with international and human
rights standards due to poor infrastructure and facilities, limited opportunities for
rehabilitation programs and limited staff training.
The penal system also faces major new challenges dealing with special prisoner populations
such as high security prisoners accused of organized or war crimes, a rising rate of juvenile
offenders and increasing healthcare problems such as drug abuse. There has also been
relatively limited support from international donors to support reform efforts in comparison
with other justice institutions, such as the courts or the police.
To address these challenges, the Ministry of Justice’s Department for Execution of Penal
Sanctions (DEPS) has developed a Penal Reform Strategy, which sets out the primary reform
priorities. The Penal Reform Strategy is based on three key goals:

To hold each prisoner safely and securely, in humane conditions in line with
international standards;
To promote the use of non-custodial sanctions to punish and rehabilitate offenders;
and
To reduce re-offending by prisoners after release.


DEPS has established ten Commissions to lead reforms in priority areas, and intends to
establish two more Commissions. Some progress has already been made by the
Commissions to implement key reforms. A revised Law on the Execution of Penal Sanctions
has been submitted to Parliament which provides an important framework to reform the
penal system in line with international standards.
Short-Term Reforms
2006-2007
Penal Reform Strategy adopted;
implementing Commissions
propose legislative amendments
and action plans.
Medium Term Reforms
2008-2010
Long-Term Reforms
2011-2013
Priority legal reforms under Penal
Reform Strategy completed,
training and facility renovation
programs initiated.
Restructured staffing and
institutional management of penal
system completed.
V.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
A.
RATIONALE
Achieving the reform goals identified in this Strategy requires regular measurement of
implementation progress during the 2006-2013 period. Given the scope of the concerned
DRAFT
- 15 -
REPUBLIC OF SERBIA
NATIONAL JUDICIAL REFORM STRATEGY
reform goals and initiatives, the most applicable and useful performance indicators are
quantitatively based and reflect objective standards of judiciary performance.
The Strategy Coordination Commission, in its capacity as the primary coordinating body for
the Strategy’s implementation, will be responsible for collecting the data required to
evaluate the reform process. Based on the trends and relative progress reflected by the
performance indicators, additional support in specific reform areas may be necessary.
B.
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
The Strategy’s performance indicators are grouped in the areas of (1) productivity; (2)
infrastructure; and (3) human resources. Specific indicators in each area will reflect various
components of the Strategy in each of the four primary areas of independence, transparency,
accountability and efficiency.
PRODUCTIVITY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Indicator
Court System Productivity
Case Productivity
(by court system)
Hearing Efficiency
Metric
Frequency
Goal
Number of backlogged cases, by court system
Average duration of cases
Disposition Ratio (cases closed/cases filed)
Remand-Reversal Ratio
Average number of productive hearings per case
(hearings-unproductive hearings/hearings)
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Decreasing
Decreasing
Decreasing
Decreasing
Increasing
Frequency
Goal
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Increasing
Increasing
Increasing
Increasing
Increasing
Frequency
Goal
Weighted Caseload per Judge
Annual
TBD
Court Assistants/Judges
Administrative Staff/Judges
Annual
Annual
TBD
TBD
Survey of court staff
Annual
Increasing
Skill Level
INFRASTRUCTURE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Indicator
Metric
Automation Penetration
(by court system)
Judicial Facility Availability
Training Penetration
Judicial networked PCs/Judges
Staff networked PCs/Staff
(Courtrooms + Chambers)/Judges
Judicial Training Hours Delivered/Judges
Staff Training Hours Delivered/Staff
HUMAN RESOURCES PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Indicator
Judicial Production
(by court system)
Court Assistant Availability
Administrative Staff
Availability
Court Staff Technical &
Operational Skills
DRAFT
Metric
- 16 -
REPUBLIC OF SERBIA