BELGRADE CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Mlatisumina 26/I, 11000 Belgrade
tel./fax. 011- 432 572, 344 1203
E-mail: bgcentar@EUnet.yu
www.bgcentar.org.yu

Persecution of judges in Serbia - Bulletin No. 5

A COMIC TWIST IN THE OTHERWISE SAD STORY OF DISMISSAL OF JUDGES IN SERBIA

After all the media informed the public that, among the three judges, the Serbian parliament had dismissed Bozidar Prelevic, judge of the Fifth Municipal Court in Belgrade, the gravity of the situation left us all in belief that the name of judge Bozo Prelevic was actually misspelled by the journalists due to their free interpretation of the judge’s christened name Bozo, which indeed may appear as nickname. However, it turned out that the Parliament itself voted to dismiss Bozidar and not Bozo, and had, thereby, relieved from duties a non-existing person. Bozo Prelevic, therefore, went on to sit on his pre-scheduled hearings. One was held yesterday and another one is tomorrow. The president of the Fifth municipal court, otherwise on good terms with judge Prelevic, approached him yesterday, which resulted in the following conversation:

“Bozo, well, you cannot possibly preside in those trials anymore. After all,
 you are the only judge Prelevic in this court.”
“Mr. President, after all, another Bozidar sits in this court, as well.
 How am I to know that it was not his surname that was misspelled?”
“Please Bozo, then at least refrain from pronouncing judgements.”

 And the play goes on. It is not legally possible for the Assembly to come around this by a simple correction of the name. The MPs would have to vote for a “real” Prelevic once again, which leaves judge Bozo Prelevic with a few more opportunities to perform.

This element of the story shows that the decision to remove Prelevic and others was made far away from the judiciary and that nobody bothered to look into Prelevic's file.

THE BELGRADE CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS WISHES YOU A HAPPIER NEW YEAR

30 December 1999

Free Serbia on Wednesday, December 22nd, 1999

Reactions on discharges to three judges

Slobodan Vucetic, since yesterday ex-judge of Supreme Court of Serbia said that his discharge was against constitution. According to his words, judge can be discharged for only two reasons, first is sentence for criminal act and second is permanent lost of working ability, reported media from Belgrade. He claims that he found out about letter to Assembly of Serbia, with which Ratko Butulija, president of Supreme Court of Serbia had proposed discharge, from newspapers.
     Democratic Party announced that proposition for discharge of three judges represents introduction for pursuit of judges that are not under direct regime control.
     Goran Svilanovic, president of Civic Alliance of Serbia had qualified the decision about discharge, in written statement delivered to media, as "act of (???) which should scared the members of Association of judges and all other judges in country which intend to work honestly and refuse to brake under pressures.
     Democratic Party of Serbia in her statement pointed that "Assembly of Serbia had already discharged two judges in November, so the strike on Association of judges was expected".
     New democracy Party said in their statement that Assembly of Serbia has long ago lost her constitutional tasks and became political judge.
     Vladan Batic, coordinator in Alliance for Change and leader of DCPS, had send an open letter to Serbia's judges and lawyers, in which he proposed that Lawyers Chamber should organize general strike with judges, in the same time, if they don't recall discharge in 24 hours. Strike should, according to him, have three demands: that three named judges be returned to their functions, to discharge Dragoljub Jankovic, minister of justice and Balsa Govedarica, president of Supreme Court of Serbia, and to organize discussion about complete reform of Justice Department.
     Social-democratic Party announced that it is act of showdown with people who are qualified as political enemy.

 
BELGRADE CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Mlatisumina 26/I, 11000 Belgrade
tel./fax. 011- 432 572, 344 1203
E-mail: bgcentar@EUnet.yu
www.bgcentar.org.yu

DISMISSAL OF THREE EMINENT JUDGES IN SERBIA

On 21 December, 1999, the Serbian National Assembly, acting upon an urgent proposal of its Committee for the Judiciary, dismissed Slobodan Vucetic, judge of the Constitutional Court of Serbia, Zoran Ivosevic, judge of the Supreme Court of Serbia and Bozo Prelevic, judge of the Fifth Municipal Court in Belgrade.

The procedure and the grounds for the dismissal of the three judges violated the Constitution of Serbia. As announced by the president of the Committee for the Judiciary, Goran Percevic, MP (Socialist Party of Serbia), the Committee found that the positions the judges occupy in the Association of Judges of Serbia - judge Vucetic is a member of the Board of the Association of Judges, judge Ivosevic is president of the Board of the Association and judge Prelevic is the spokesperson for the Association - disqualified them as judges. In addition, judge Vucetic was denounced for his membership in a professional group of prominent independent experts, "G-17 Plus", found, according to Percevic, to be aiming to "topple the legal authorities". The phrase comes from the letter of the original proposal for the dismissal of Vucetic, signed by the President of the Constitutional Court of Serbia, Ratko Butulija, a non-jurist. None of the three judges belongs to any political party.

All three judges are prominent legal experts with a longstanding background both in theory and practice of law. Judge Ivosevic holds a Dr juris degree, and has published numerous legal studies and other publications, the most recent one being the book "I Do Not Give In", a compilation of published articles, mostly on the destruction of the independent judiciary in Serbia. Judge Vucetic, also Dr juris, has publicly criticized some of the notorious decisions handed down by the Constitutional Court of Serbia, as well as many of the acts which were enacted by the Parliament in breach of the Constitution. He has also published numerous articles and authored three books, "Democracy Without Proof", "The Privatized State" and "The Fatal Government", where he critically analyzed the deformities in the establishment of the constitutional and political system in Serbia and the FRY. Judge Prelevic is among the most competent criminal judges in Belgrade. All the three dismissed judges have publicly criticized on numerous occasions the unconstitutional and illegal performance of the authorities and stood against the electoral fraud committed by courts and electoral committees in numerous municipalities and cities in Serbia, following the 1996 municipal elections.

This latest event stands for yet another offensive in the war launched by the regime against every spark of opposition and everyone who dares criticize. It is obvious that the regime now intends to secure a propitious environment for new manipulation of elections by the elimination of embarrassing witnesses and frightening all other judges who might not perform according to instructions from above.

As the press was told today by judge Ivosevic, a clear reason for avoiding the constitutional procedure, which entails convoking the general session of the Supreme Court judges to decide on the validity of grounds for a proposed dismissal of every judge, was the attitude the Supreme Court judges have shown while deliberating on the similar proposal, some 20 days ago. On that occasion, 26 judges of this court voted against the initiative for the dismissal of a judge, finding it as based on unsubstantiated grounds, whereas 21 judges voted in favor and 4 abstained. "When it became obvious that the general session of the Supreme Court may not be abused, it was decided that it should be avoided altogether", said judge Ivosevic, himself a (former) judge of the Supreme Court of Serbia.

Both Serbian and Yugoslav constitutions guarantee the immovability of judges and, accordingly, prescribe a strict procedure and restricted grounds for the dismissal of a judge. Whereas the Serbian constitution states that judges cannot simultaneously perform other public duties (Art. 100), it clearly stipulates that a judge may be dismissed, contrary to his/her own will, only if it is established that he/she was sentenced by imprisonment for a criminal act, or if the judge is found to be permanently incapacitated to perform his/her function (Art. 101). Even if the "other public duties performed by the judge" was to be found as sufficient ground for dismissal, the general session of the Supreme Court would have to decide that such particular duties, even membership in a professional association, are unbecoming of a judge. At the same time, the identical constitutional prohibition applies to both the ministers and presidents of Serbia and Yugoslavia, who at the same time hold several other functions, including the highest positions in the ruling political parties. No initiative regarding the latter has been recorded.

Betreff:   [balkanhr] BCHR: RELEASE BY ASSOCIATION OF JUDGES OF SERBIA, No. 3
Datum:   Fri, 17 Dec 1999 19:01:25 +0200
Von:       Belgrade Centre for Human Rights bgcentar@EUnet.yu
              (by way of Greek Helsinki Monitor <office@greekhelsinki.gr>)
Rückantwort: balkanHR@greekhelsinki.gr

 
PROUD OF THE ASSOCIATION OF JUDGES OF SERBIA

An open letter to Mr. Balsa Govedarica, president of the Supreme Court of Serbia, published in the Belgrade independent daily Danas, 14 December 1999

Mr. president,

Being struck as a professional and human being with what had been done to the Serbian judiciary, including your illegal and unprincipled policy of inquisition with regard to members of the Association of Judges of Serbia through the presidents of courts, which was recently exercised in my (Second Municipal) court on a session of the college of judges, I am addressing you with this open letter.

Let me remind you of our acquaintance when I was the Second Municipal Court Deputy President, the position I left at the time of the founding of the Association of Judges. I am still sitting in the Second Court without being promoted regardless of my long carrier, responsible performance, and, I dare say, expertise, but, on the contrary, in the last couple of months, I lived through being unprofessionally and quite theatrically transferred from and into various departments, together with my desk. At the moment, I am sitting in the department of non-contentious procedure.

Both of us followed one's own path: yours led you to serve the regime and mine led me to struggle for preservation of the profession in the Association of Judges, together with the people of an outstanding honor and professionalism, who are, by now, my dear friends. Both of us did it following our own beliefs. My belief lies in preserving the profession and my children's future and the future of all the youth lost at this time in these parts. I admit that I have been selfish, as well, to protect some of this soul left in me after all I had lived through in this country during the past ten years.

You have put our profession, once respected and admired, in service of daily politics, and deprived it of independence, which it was granted by Constitution and Law. As far as the financial status is concerned, we (the judges) became a socially deprived category. As far as the expertise and efficacy of the courts and the work results are concerned, let the parties and lawyers be the ones to evaluate. I am of the opinion that the result of such evaluation would be very poor and entirely different from the one you have been using to praise yourself, in the Report on the work of court, but then again, you yourself are also very much aware of that fact. The Association of Judges strives for independence, legality, improvement of financial status, dignity and respect of judges, who would not be subjects but distinguished administrators of justice. It is probably for this reason that the Association bothers you so much.

In conclusion, I will, hereby, answer to your question, for the summoned college of judges was neither a proper place, nor did I have anyone there to answer to:

I am a member of the Association of Judges and I do stand proud of it!

Awaiting your response,

Mrs. Gordana Mihajlovic,
Judge of the Second Municipal Court in Belgrade

 
Belgrade Centre for Human Rights
ASSOCIATION OF JUDGES OF SERBIA, No. 2

PERSECUTION CONTINUES:

Judicial committees held in courts throughout Serbia examining membership in the proscribed Association of Judges

Judge Sasa Obradovic of the Valjevo Municipal Court requested to be relieved due to the shameful treatment of the judicial profession by the authorities

Grave breach of the constitution by the Serbian parliament: dismissal of judges Marjanovic, Baltic and Cucic
 

The first judges to feel the purge were the municipal and district courts judges of Novi Pazar. After some thirty judges of these courts openly announced their membership in the Association of Judges, the presidents of courts answered by a clear warning that such membership would be interpreted as a ground for their dismissal from office. Following the warning, on a joint session of the judicial committee of these two courts, one judge had, nevertheless, stood up expressing his pride with his membership in the organization.

In the South Serbian city of Nis, judges of the municipal court have on constitutional grounds jointly protested against such an enquiry. Although under constant threats of dismissal and material penalties those judges on the outset rejected to answer the question, which they found to be violating their constitutional right to privacy.

Several judges in various courts throughout Serbia stood up and admitted to their membership in the Association in an atmosphere of extreme tension. It came as quite a surprise that some of the Supreme Court of Serbia judges whose membership in the Association had not previously been known reacted in the same way at the general session of this Court's civil chamber. The Belgrade Centre decided not to divulge the names of all those brave people out of concern that someone might be omitted.

Judge Sasa Obradovic of the Valjevo municipal court has addressed an open letter to the Serbian Parliament announcing his wish to be dismissed from office on personal grounds. As he himself stated: "The status of a judge in today's Serbia probably represents the unique phenomenon in the contemporary judiciary systems of the world. The grave social crisis that Serbia has been suffering from for the past years involving wars, isolation from Europe, poverty and discrimination, the collapse of all moral standards and basic social values, subordination of all state institutions to the narrow interests of the ruling political parties, shamefully low income of a judge, whereas an ordinary policeman earns more … placed our judiciary in an absurd and disgraceful position. Although I have been doing my best to resist this downfall over the past years, I have not been able to change the actual reality: on our judgments, only the poor were sent to prison. Therefore, as I lack prerequisites to perform my function in the best manner, and since I do not wish to accept any other standard, I consider myself unfit to continue to be a judge" (taken from the letter published in the independent weekly, Vreme, 16 October).

At the very beginning of its regular yearly session the Serbian parliament removed three members of the Association of Judges from their office, on the grounds of incompetent and unprofessional performance. The striking and frightening fact about this venture was the complete disregard of legal procedure, which the constitution of Serbia (Art. 101, para. 4) and the Serbian Courts Act (Art. 27) prescribe. Namely, when the proposal for the dismissal of a judge is initiated by the president of the court where the judge sits, it should be directed to the general session of the Supreme Court of Serbia, which then deliberates on the merits of the concrete proposal. After the Supreme Court has heard the testimony of the judge in question and after it is found that the reasonable grounds for his removal from office exist, the Court initiates the procedure before the parliament, whose members than vote on the matter. In this case, neither was the general session of the Supreme Court ever summoned, nor did the Court ever determinate the relevant facts or hear the testimony of the three judges before they were relieved by the parliament. Such arbitrariness, apart from showing inexcusable disrespect of law, totally undermines the constitutional principle of the permanence and immovability of judges, which is elementary for an independent judiciary. The dismissed judges are now left with no further legal remedies at their disposal whilst the others are intimidated by the new pattern of repression.
 

The Belgrade Centre for Human Rights joins the Association of Judges in their legitimate fear that the campaign against this Association is primarily aimed at complete submission, primarily of the municipal courts, to the will of the regime before the coming elections. Namely, according to the newly amended Local Self-Government Act, which governs local elections, the municipal courts will decide in the final instance on the results of the elections and on related complaints. Bearing in mind the unfortunate experience with manipulations performed by judges close to the ruling parties after the local elections in November 1996, the government's aim becomes much clearer.

If the persecution of the independent judges is not stopped by increased pressure both from the international and domestic spheres, the chances for Serbia ever to have fair elections and genuine democracy will be diminished for at least another four years.

 
THE BELGRADE CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Mlatišumina 26, 11000 Beograd, FR Yugoslavia
Tel/fax (+381 11) 432 572 or 344 1203.
E-mail: <mailto:bgcentar@eunet.yu>bgcentar@eunet.yu
<http://www.bgcentar.org.yu>www.bgcentar.org.yu

Persecution of judges in Serbia - Bulletin No. 1

THE ASSOCIATION OF JUDGES OF SERBIA

The Association of Judges of Serbia was established as a reaction to the manipulations performed by the Serbian courts after the local elections in November 1996. It is estimated that nowadays almost a quarter of the total number of judges in Serbia belongs to this association. However, most of its members are reluctant to admit their membership for the fear of possible consequences from the authorities personified in presidents of courts, appointed by the government and persons of significant powers.

Although the Association is of a professional kind, comprised of judges committed to the promotion of the rule of law, it has been exposed to incessant attacks by the authorities ever since it had been founded. The latest one presents the denial by the administration of its registration as a legal entity, a dubious decision according to the very constitutions of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Serbia, which guarantee the freedom of political, trade union and other kind of association without preliminary permission, by simple registration with the competent authority. Regrettably, instead of ordering the Ministry of Interior to register the Association, the Supreme Court of Serbia upheld this unconstitutional administrative decision.

The Association of Judges at present functions as part of the Association of Jurists of Serbia, an organization which enjoys the status of a registered legal entity and hosts sixteen different societies, also not registered as separate legal entities. Apparently, this situation does not satisfy the president of the Supreme Court of Serbia, Mr. Balsa Govedarica, who recently openly threatened the members of the Association of Judges with removal from their functions as judges only if their membership in this association would be detected. It is not known what legal grounds could the Serbian Parliament find dismiss the judges, since this is the body with the authority in law to initiate the procedure for a judge's removal. The only personal restriction of the freedom of association applicable to judges, according to the Serbian Courts Act, relates to their exercise of political functions, as well as the commission of deeds incompatible with their role of judges. As the Association of Judges is by no means a political party, it remains yet to be seen how the authorities would interpret the membership in a non-governmental organization promoting the rule of law as being unbecoming of a judge. Unfortunately, the Serbian Parliament is a rubber stamp body originating in the 1997 elections, boycotted by most parties of the democratic opposition.

Following the orders of Mr. Govedarica, the presidents of courts have recently started to summon judges to a peculiar inquisition-kind-of-meetings in order to investigate their membership in the Association of Judges. Judges were ordered to admit to their membership and were openly threatened with removal from their office if the suspicion was to be proved. The Belgrade Centre for Human Rights issued a protest reminding those responsible that such activities amounted to serious violations of the right to freedom of association and the right to privacy according inter alia to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which FR Yugoslavia is a party.

	Wolfgang Plarre		Homepage Inhaltsverzeichnis - Contents Seite erstellt am 23.12.1999 Mail senden
	Dillinger Straße 41... 86637 Wertingen. ..
	Telefon       08272 - 98974  Fax            08272 - 98975....
	E-mail wplarre@bndlg.de