Human Rights Action warns that some provisions of the working versions of the Law on Courts, Law on the Judicial Council and the Rights and Duties of Judges and Law on the State Prosecutor’s Office considerably jeopardize the autonomy of judges, drastically limit the scope of candidates who can be appointed to senior positions in the judiciary and prosecution, and propose vague criteria for evaluation of candidates.

Particularly problematic is the provision of the Law on Courts which obliges judges to respect the principal legal position of the session of judges of their court, as it represents an attack on the autonomy and independence of each judge. In passing judgments a judge is bound only by law and the Constitution, and not the opinions of fellow judges.

The working version prescribes that only judges can compete for a judge of the High Court or Appellate Court or Supreme Court, or that only prosecutors can be appointed as heads of prosecutor’s offices or the Supreme State Prosecutor. Such restriction of the right of other legal experts, e.g. attorneys and professors to be elected, significantly reduces the number of potential candidates and the chance to choose best professionals.
Conditions for the appointment of members of the Judicial and Prosecutorial Council do not include criteria for the prevention of conflict of interest, allowing political influence through a spouse or other close relatives. It is also possible that previously disciplined judges and prosecutors, and those who have not excelled in their work, be elected into the councils.

Criteria for the appointment and promotion of judges are still vague and open to arbitrary interpretation. HRA highlights a particularly problematic criterion according to which candidate’s “social understanding of a judge’s role in the society and of economic and social conditions” is to be assessed in an interview evaluated from 0 to 20 points.