Serbia Passes Judicial Academy Law With 141 Votes

Serbia’s National Assembly passed the Judicial Academy Law on August 31 with 141 votes in favor. Lawmakers voted through the same package amendments to the Law on Judges, amendments to the Law on Public Prosecution, amendments to the Law on Public Notaries, and additions to the Law on Lobbying. The Judicial Academy bill was submitted by the government, and debate on the amendments had already taken place three days earlier, on August 28, when the opposition warned that the law strips powers from the High Judicial Council (HJC) and the High Prosecutorial Council (HPC).

The law regulates the status of the Judicial Academy, its governing bodies and financing, along with the training of judges, public prosecution officeholders, and judicial and prosecutorial assistants. The Academy’s Management Board, which runs the institution, has 11 members: five judges appointed by the HJC, four public prosecutors appointed by the HPC, and two members appointed by the government. The executive body is a director, while the Program Council serves as the expert body. Professional oversight of the Academy’s work remains with the HJC and the HPC.

The length of training depends on a candidate’s work experience after passing the bar exam for the judiciary. Candidates with up to two years of experience train for 24 months, those with two to four years for 12 months, those with four to six years for six months, and those with more than six years for three months. The Venice Commission gave a positive opinion on the bill.

A Two Week Old Dispute

The vote followed a dispute that had been running since mid August. On August 18, the Judges’ Association of Serbia called on the government to withdraw the judiciary law amendments from the procedure and hold a public debate under the Law on State Administration and the government’s Rules of Procedure. The Association of Judicial Assistants called the proposed changes unconstitutional, arguing that they create a monopoly for the Judicial Academy over the selection of judges and prosecutors. Neither call stopped the procedure, and the law reached the Assembly essentially unchanged.

What Opposition Lawmakers Said

In the August 28 debate, the sharpest criticism came from Goran Petrovic, a lawmaker with the Party of Freedom and Justice, who called the law an instrument for seizing control over the selection of judges and prosecutors.

“You have reduced the HJC and HPC to some kind of councils that give recommendations, recommendations that may or may not be followed.”

Petrovic accused the ruling majority of intending to use its majority on the Academy’s Management Board and Program Council to directly influence the selection of judges and prosecutors. Verica Milanovic, a lawmaker with the Serbia Center party, issued a similar warning, saying the Academy must not become the sole entry point into the judiciary.

“The Judicial Academy cannot be the body that assesses the competence and qualifications of judges and prosecutors.”

Part of the debate was devoted by opposition lawmakers, including Robert Kozma of the Green-Left Front and Branko Pavlovic of the We, Voice from the People movement, to a 2024 report by the State Audit Institution (SAI). The SAI found at the time that the Judicial Academy, then headed by the current justice minister Nenad Vujic, had paid out 272 million dinars in salaries and contributions outside the conditions set by law, procured 28 million dinars in services without holding a public tender, and paid millions of dinars for hotels and taxis without following the required procedure. The audit body called at the time for the dismissal of the Academy’s responsible official. Pavlovic rejected the minister’s characterization of those irregularities as a result of good intentions, calling it unacceptable: “Deliberately violating legal provisions is unacceptable.”

The Minister’s Response

Nenad Vujic, the justice minister who himself previously headed the Judicial Academy, responded that it was the Venice Commission itself that had insisted on the wording concerning the Academy’s institutional independence, listing it as one of its key recommendations. He did not rate the Academy’s work as poor, noting that such an assessment would imply that the judges and prosecutors who make up the institution are not doing their jobs well.

Asked about payments made after contracts with young staff had expired, Vujic explained that a legal gap had emerged at one point, and that the goal had been to keep 120 qualified young people in the judiciary. After their training ended, they were assigned additional work in courts and prosecution offices while the Academy kept paying their salaries. “That was done to preserve and retain young staff in the judiciary,” the minister said.

The law now awaits publication in the Official Gazette, while the composition of the Management Board, which will oversee the Academy’s work going forward, has yet to be appointed by the HJC and the HPC.