Overall, Serbia's judicial system has implemented many
reforms since 2014. However, the reforms did not significantly
impact the performance outside of efficiency of case processing, and
Serbia's performance falls below that of comparator European countries.
This is partially due to an absence of sufficiently strong governance
structures and frequently changing laws but also relates to a lack of
communication with citizens and businesses. The main reform results
identified through the Judicial Functional Review are presented
below.
Most of the recommendations listed in the 2014 Judicial
Functional Review remain unfulfilled. The suggested
priorities that require continued emphasis include:
developing a performance framework that tracks the performance of
courts and Public Prosecutor's Offices (PPOs) against a targeted list of
key performance indicators.
ensuring that courts use the full functionality of their case
management system to improve consistent application of law and
consistency of practice;
developing a comprehensive continuing training program for
judges, prosecutors, and court staff;
reforming procedural laws to simplify the service of process and
business processes; and
developing a more realistic and transparent budget within the
existing resource envelope that promotes improvements in efficiency,
quality of justice, and access to the judiciary.
Critically, the division of responsibilities between the
key governing bodies remains unclear. The fragmentation of governance
and management responsibilities stalls progress and dilutes
accountability. This is true in areas such as budget planning,
process re-engineering, human resources, and ICT and infrastructure
improvements. The adoption of Constitutional amendments in February 2022
presents an opportunity for improvement in this area. However,
implementing the new governance arrangement will require the preparation
and adoption of laws and bylaws in line with the Constitutional
amendments, which are planned for early 2023.
On a positive note, in recent years, the efficiency of
the judicial system has improved:
The total disposition time of Serbian courts decreased
significantly by 47 percent, from 580 days in 2014 to 274 in
2020;
Since 2014, the backlog of old utility bill enforcement cases has
been resolved;
The Law on Enforcement and Security transferred the
responsibility for a significant part of enforcement cases from courts
to private bailiffs.
However, despite improvements in the speed of case
processing, the pending stock of court cases has increased. The
available data do not distinguish between judicial performance and
increased demand for court services – which is outside the control of
the judiciary – as an explanation for this increase in the
demand.
In addition, significant variations in efficiency across
courts, in terms of efficiency, quality, workload, and service delivery,
remain excessive. The workload is not equally distributed,
leaving some courts very busy and others demonstrably less so. For
example, in 2019, in Dimitrovgrad, a Basic Court judge received an
average of 245 cases and resolved 317, while a Basic Court judge in
Lebane received an average of 1,468 cases and resolved 1,487.
The legal framework for access to justice has improved
due to the adoption of the Law on Free Legal Aid. However,
local governments have not allocated adequate budget resources for its
implementation, while public awareness of free legal services remains
very low. Procedures for court fee waivers are still not unified,
resulting in inconsistent access to justice. Attorney fees are more
highly prescribed than in most of EU member states. For instance,
attorneys continue to be paid per hearing or motion, which can encourage
needless procedural steps.
Finally, resources are still not allocated efficiently
across Serbia's judicial sector. Despite progress in aligning
human resource management procedures with EU standards, there is no
evidence of a strategic approach to managing human resources – the
judiciary's largest resource by far - in the Serbian court and
prosecution system. The staffing levels for judges, prosecutors, and
staff appeared to be set in an ad hoc manner. This results in large
variations in costs per active case across the judicial system and
within the courts and PPOs of the same level. An absence of
interoperability between Case Management Systems and budget execution
systems prevented detailed tracking of expenses per case.
Of the many findings and recommendations outlined in the
Report, the Functional Review team suggests focusing on the following
three priorities, which can set the Serbian judiciary on a path to
performance improvement. Without significant progress in these
priority areas, the sector will likely be unable to achieve the kind of
transformation that would be necessary to align performance with that of
EU Member States.
Develop a result framework that tracks the performance of
courts and PPOs against a targeted list of key performance
indicators. The result framework should include the most
relevant indicators of efficiency, quality, and access to justice. The
development and use of result framework by Court Presidents, Supreme
Court of Cassation, Heads of PPOs, RPPO, HJC, and SPC will lead to
improvement in efficiency and increased accountability.
Reform judicial package of laws to align it with 2022
Constitutional amendments to strengthen independence and integrity of
judiciary. Amendments to the judicial package should be in line
with Venice Commission opinions and Consultative Council of European
Judges (CCJE) and Consultative Council of European Prosecutors (CCPE)
recommendations to protect Councils, courts, and PPOs' independence and
prevent any undue influence on the judiciary.
Ensure the full implementation of digitalization of the
justice system through the roll-out of automatized case management
systems in courts and PPOs and their interoperability.
Governance of the various digitalization efforts in the justice system
will require special attention. The process should be chaired by the
Ministry of Justice, with the active participation of other judicial
stakeholders. In addition, sector leaders in the HJC, SCC, SPC, and RPPO
should coordinate the implementation of the ongoing and future
digitalization of the justice system. The MOJ together with the HJC and
SPC should develop an ICT security standard to support the security
standardization work of the judiciary. Digitalization of justice should
contribute to the increase of accessibility and transparency of the
judiciary. Furthermore, the adequate use of the ICT to improve
efficiency will contribute to reducing pending stock and decreasing
disposition time.
