Limited Judicial Liability for Damages – A Privilege Indispensable for Judicial Independence, or an Element of Strengthening Judicial Irresponsibility?

Članak se bavi sudijskim građanskopravnim imunitetom (privilegijom) sa istorijskog, uporednopravnog i pozitivnopravnog aspekta. Razvoj ideje, zakonodavstva i prakse ograničene odgovornosti sudije za naknadu štete prikazan je na primerima vodećih država anglo-američkog i evropskog kontinentalnopravnog kruga. Razmatran je i uticaj evropskih sudskih instanci na obim sudijskog imuniteta u nekim nacionalnim pravima. Posebno je prikazan razvoj sudijskog imuniteta u Srbiji – naročito najnovije težnje ka njegovom proširenju.Until today, judicial immunity has been explained by the need to secure independence of judges and courts. High requirements for election of judges and the demanding conditions for their dismissal were until recently considered to be sufficient to guarantee legality of judicial conduct of proceedings and correctness of judicial adjudication, so that the idea of disciplinary liability of judges had difficulties finding its advocates in the states successors of former Yugoslavia. In cases where judges cause damages by their work, the damage will be regularly compensated by the state, which can, in turn, under specific conditions raise a recourse claim against the judge. This paper outlines some important points in the historic development of judicial immunity for damage compensation in England, USA, Germany and France. The contemporary laws and regulations and the leading cases of these countries are presented as well, including some relevant information on situation in some other European countries. The main argument for establishing judicial immunity in civil cases, ie the need to guarantee judicial independence, is met in this paper by criticism, in particular from the viewpoint of current and announced legislative developments in Serbia. The author initiates her critical analysis by the submission that direct judicial liability is currently only an exception to the rule that the state covers the damages caused by judicial work, while the right of recourse of the state against a judge is generally limited to cases in which the damages were caused intentionally or by gross negligence. National legislations display a trend of further limiting civil liability of judges, and thereby also of the state, for compensation of damages, effectively broadening judicial immunity. On the contrary, European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the EU tend to extend the liability of the state, and thereby also the civil liability of judges. The binding force of the European judicial institutions for the national courts has in recent times led to effective limitation of judicial immunity. In her concluding remarks, the author presents and explains her analysis of most recent tendencies in the development of judicial immunity in civil matters in Serbia. They are the following: under current rules of civil procedure, injured parties have difficulties securing their right of access to court when they decide to sue the state for damages caused by judges; the right of state to recourse claims against judges is planned to be limited, in the announced amendments of the Law on Judges, only to cases where judges have committed damages intentionally. Such an approach is considered to be inappropriate. It can secure neither real judicial independence, nor the rule of law. In addition, this approach discourages formation of reliable corpus of case law regarding civil immunity of judges

Limited Judicial Liability for Damages – A Privilege Indispensable for Judicial Independence, or an Element of Strengthening Judicial Irresponsibility?

Članak se bavi sudijskim građanskopravnim imunitetom (privilegijom) sa istorijskog, uporednopravnog i pozitivnopravnog aspekta. Razvoj ideje, zakonodavstva i prakse ograničene odgovornosti sudije za naknadu štete prikazan je na primerima vodećih država anglo-američkog i evropskog kontinentalnopravnog kruga. Razmatran je i uticaj evropskih sudskih instanci na obim sudijskog imuniteta u nekim nacionalnim pravima. Posebno je prikazan razvoj sudijskog imuniteta u Srbiji – naročito najnovije težnje ka njegovom proširenju.Until today, judicial immunity has been explained by the need to secure independence of judges and courts. High requirements for election of judges and the demanding conditions for their dismissal were until recently considered to be sufficient to guarantee legality of judicial conduct of proceedings and correctness of judicial adjudication, so that the idea of disciplinary liability of judges had difficulties finding its advocates in the states successors of former Yugoslavia. In cases where judges cause damages by their work, the damage will be regularly compensated by the state, which can, in turn, under specific conditions raise a recourse claim against the judge. This paper outlines some important points in the historic development of judicial immunity for damage compensation in England, USA, Germany and France. The contemporary laws and regulations and the leading cases of these countries are presented as well, including some relevant information on situation in some other European countries. The main argument for establishing judicial immunity in civil cases, ie the need to guarantee judicial independence, is met in this paper by criticism, in particular from the viewpoint of current and announced legislative developments in Serbia. The author initiates her critical analysis by the submission that direct judicial liability is currently only an exception to the rule that the state covers the damages caused by judicial work, while the right of recourse of the state against a judge is generally limited to cases in which the damages were caused intentionally or by gross negligence. National legislations display a trend of further limiting civil liability of judges, and thereby also of the state, for compensation of damages, effectively broadening judicial immunity. On the contrary, European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the EU tend to extend the liability of the state, and thereby also the civil liability of judges. The binding force of the European judicial institutions for the national courts has in recent times led to effective limitation of judicial immunity. In her concluding remarks, the author presents and explains her analysis of most recent tendencies in the development of judicial immunity in civil matters in Serbia. They are the following: under current rules of civil procedure, injured parties have difficulties securing their right of access to court when they decide to sue the state for damages caused by judges; the right of state to recourse claims against judges is planned to be limited, in the announced amendments of the Law on Judges, only to cases where judges have committed damages intentionally. Such an approach is considered to be inappropriate. It can secure neither real judicial independence, nor the rule of law. In addition, this approach discourages formation of reliable corpus of case law regarding civil immunity of judges

Reforma pravosuđa u Srbiji 2008-2012

U monografiji autori suočavaju pravničku javnost sa nedavnom pravnom istorijom neuspelih nastojanja da se pravosuđe u Srbiji pobolјša, da se poverenje građana povrati, da se postave osnove za vladavinu prava nad politikom, makar u najbitnijim elementima domena pravosudne vlasti, kao što je izbor sudija i javnih tužilaca, da se prikažu rezultati neuspele reforme i da se istraže pravni i politički uzroci neuspeha. Monografija je podelјena na dva dela – prvi pod nazivom „Reformisanje pravosuđa 2008–2010“, i drugi nazvan „Postupak preispitivanja 2011–2012“. Podela je kako hronološka, tako i logička – autori na sistematičan i sveobuhvatan način analiziraju ustavni i zakonski okvir reforme pravosuđa u Srbiji, kao i praksu tela koja su tu reformu sprovodila, te daju konačnu ocenu uspešnosti ovog poduhvata, koji je formalno okončan u julu 2012. godine. U prvom delu knjige se ispituje pravnoteorijski i pravnopolitički okvir onoga što se podrazumeva pod dobrim pravosuđem u jednoj demokratskoj državi, uz isticanje političke nezavisnosti sudija i sudstva kao klјučnog elementa te formule. Poseban deo posvećen je međunarodnopravnim, teorijskim, ustavnim i zakonskim osnovima reforme pravosuđa iz 2008. godine. U monografiji se detalјno kritički analizira Ustav Srbije iz 2006. godine, kao i Ustavni zakon za sprovođenje Ustava, te organizacioni pravosudni zakoni, koji su predstavlјali normativni osnov za najdublјi zahvat u pravosuđe u novoj demokratskoj istoriji Srbije. Detalјno su analizirane i odluke Ustavnog suda Srbije, kao i izdvojena mišlјenja. Ne manje značajna je i analiza odluke na osnovu koje je valјalo temelјno izmeniti pravosudni kadar Srbije. U radu se potom prikazuje način na koji su radila tela koja su reformu sprovodila, sa naročitim akcentom na sastav i način rada prvog saziva Visokog saveta sudstva, i na uočene nedostatke po oba pitanja. Potom je kritički analiziran normativnopravni okvir za postupak preispitivanja odluka prvih saziva Visokog saveta sudstva i Državnog veća tužilaca, kao uvod u drugi deo publikacije. Drugi deo monografije je posvećen detalјnoj kritičkoj analizi postupka preispitivanja odluka o neizboru na funkciju sudija, javnih tužilaca i zamenika javnih tužilaca. Autori su prvo detalјno prikazali rad tela pred kojima je vođen postupak, analizirajući naročito to da li su ona i u kojoj meri poštovala procesna načela u svom radu. Potom je izvršena detalјna analiza transparentnosti rada ovih tela i data ocena o tome da li su ona zaista bila nezavisna tela koja su postupala u cilјu ispravlјanja pogrešaka do tada učinjenih u reformi pravosuđa. Poseban deo publikacije posvećen je analizi sadržine odluka koje su usvojili novi sastavi Državnog veća tužilaca i Visokog saveta sudstva. Potom je učinjen osvrt na ulogu različitih organizacija koje su pratile ovaj postupak i njihov uticaj na tok postupka preispitivanja. Na samom kraju analizirane su odluke Ustavnog suda iz jula 2012. godine, kojima je postupak de facto vraćen u fazu pre opšteg izbora sudija, javnih tužilaca i zamenika javnih tužilaca iz 2009. godine. U zaklјučku su autori dali oštru ali utemelјenu kritiku pokušaja da se pravosuđe Srbije reformiše u skladu sa evropskim standardima, kao i neke načelne preporuke koje se moraju poštovati kako bi se postigao cilј kojem jedna demokratska država mora težiti – da ima odista nezavisno i stručno pravosuđe

Peace and Justice through a Feminist Lens: Gender Justice and the Women’s Court for the Former Yugoslavia

Post-conflict interventions to ‘deal with’ violent pasts have moved from exception to global norm. Early efforts to achieve peace and justice were critiqued as ‘gender-blind’—for failing to address sexual and gender-based violence, and neglecting the gender-specific interests and needs of women in transitional settings. The advent of UN Security Council resolutions on ‘Women, Peace and Security’ provided a key policy framework for integrating both women and gender issues into transitional justice processes and mechanisms. Despite this, gender justice and equality in (post-)conflict settings remain largely unachieved. This article explores efforts to attain gender-just peace in post-conflict Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). It critically examines the significance of a recent ‘bottom-up’ truth-telling project—the Women’s Court for the former Yugoslavia—as a locally engaged approach to achieving justice and redress for women impacted by armed conflict. Drawing on participant observation, documentary analysis, and interviews with women activists, the article evaluates the successes and shortcomings of responding to gendered forms of wartime violence through truth-telling. Extending Nancy Fraser’s tripartite model of justice to peacebuilding contexts, the article advances notions of recognition, redistribution and representation as crucial components of gender-just peace. It argues that recognizing women as victims and survivors of conflict, achieving a gender-equitable distribution of material and symbolic resources, and enabling women to participate as agents of transitional justice processes are all essential for transforming the structural inequalities that enable gender violence and discrimination to materialize before, during, and after conflict