All for Joomla All for Webmasters
18. 10. 25


rencontre femme 38550 sablons Reaction to the Ministry of Justice’s claims

http://fbmedical.fr/aftepaes/5037 Regarding the Venice Commission’s positive assessment

rencontre en ligne cameroun On 24 October 2018 the Ministry of Justice revealed on its website that the Members of the Venice Commission discussed during the Commission’s 116th Plenary Session the fourth Draft Constitutional Amendments of the Ministry. The Ministry’s press release claimed that the Venice Commission concluded the latest version of amendments, created as a product of the harmonisation with the professional public comments, compatible with the Venice Commission’s recommendations.

Read More: Reaction to the Ministry of Justice’s claims Regarding the Venice Commission’s positive assessment
18. 09. 13

source With regard to the third version, this time in a form entitled Draft Amendments to the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia (for public debate), that the Ministry of Justice published on its website in late afternoon of the 11 September 2018, without a Constitutional Law for implementation of the Amendments and without a call for public debate, the Judges’ Association of Serbia is publishing the following

site de rencontre pour personnes mariГ©es gratuit S T A T E M E N T

The Ministry of Justice, with this version of the Constitutional amendments also, does not withdraw from its intention to subject the judiciary to the executive and legislative powers, alongside widening the possibilities of political influence on the judiciary.

Read More: Press release regarding Draft Constitutional Amendments
18. 05. 14

Following a request of the Judges’ Association of Serbia to assess the compatibility with European standards of the proposed amendments to the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, the Bureau of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) published its Opinion on 4 May 2018.

The Opinion is available on CCJE's website and here for download.

18. 03. 19

In her interview of 11 March of this year, the Minister of Justice presented a series of false and incomplete information. Let us start one by one. The fact that the Working Group that consisted of judges, public prosecutors and constitutional law professors drafted the Legal Analysis of the Constitutional Framework on the Judiciary in 2014 does not mean that the Analysis was the starting point of the hitherto process of amending the Constitution in terms of content. This Analysis, the whole of the judiciary is concordant with, was hidden from the public by the Ministry of Justice, while the Working Version of the Draft Amendments is diametrically opposed to it. Comments of the Supreme Court of Cassation, the High Judicial Council, the Judges’ Association, as well as public statements of the members of the Working Group, Dragomir Milojević, constitutional law professors Irena Pejić and Darko Simović and my own testify about this.

Read More: Incomplete information from Minister of Justice
18. 03. 15

As a contribution to the debate on the Working Version of the Draft Amendments to the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia on 20 February 2018 the Judges Association of Serbia and the Prosecutors Association of Serbia have organised a Public Hearing of Professors that was attended by fifteen eminent experts from the fields of constitutional law, theory of state and law, and judicial-organisational law. The event was attended by Prof. Ratko Markovic, Ph.D, Prof. Irena Pejić, Ph.D, Prof. Darko Simović, Ph.D, Prof. Olivera Vučić, Ph.D, Prof. Dragan Stojanović, Ph.D, Prof. Marijana Pajvančić, Ph.D, Prof. Jasminka Hasanbegović, Ph.D, Prof. Bosa Nenadić, Ph.D, Prof. Tanasije Marinković, Ph.D, Prof. Vesna Rakić-Vodinelić, Ph.D, Prof. Radmila Vasić, Ph.D, Prof. Zoran Ivošević, Ph.D, Prof. Marko Stanković, Ph.D, Prof. Violeta Beširević, Ph.D, and Academician Prof. Kosta Čavoški, Ph.D. These persons are of different age, educational background and political orientation, and their only common denominator is the legal profession. In terms of expert conclusions, they all agree that the proposed Working Version should be withdrawn due to numerous shortcomings, and that an entirely new version of the text should be drafted, with due respect paid to the constitutional procedure.

Read More: Key positions of professors