Scandal in Serbia: How the text for "Mrdić's Laws" was manipulated, without sending it to the Venice Commission

A new debate has opened in Serbia about changes to the package known as the "Mrdić Laws", as representatives of the judicial system and the opposition claim that the text submitted to Parliament differs from the one assessed by the Venice Commission.

The text of the proposed amendments to the so-called "Mrdić laws" in Serbia, which were sent to the National Assembly, differs from that assessed by the Venice Commission, claims the president of the Judicial Union, Nemanja Đurić, citing key differences in the mentioned texts.

Djuric warns Nova that such an action could cost Serbia its membership in the Council of Europe, stating that the union he leads will inform the Venice Commission about this situation.

There are serious indications that the entire text of the amendments to the law has not been sent to the Venice Commission, Stefan Janjic, a lawyer and member of the SRCE party, told Nova.

While this proposal is being discussed in the extraordinary session of the Serbian Parliament, the Minister of Justice, Nenad Vujic, denies that the texts of the law contain any changes.

An extraordinary session of the Serbian Parliament began on Tuesday, and among the 32 items on the agenda are changes and additions to a package of judicial laws known as the “Mrdić Laws,” which the professional public recognized, first and foremost, as an attack on the Prosecutor’s Office for Organized Crime.

Previously, the Venice Commission published a follow-up opinion to the urgent opinion on the “Mrdić Laws”, stating that Serbia has implemented seven out of nine recommendations, but two of the main ones still remain unresolved.

Different texts before MPs and the Venice Commission?

Just one day before the parliamentary session, the president of the Judicial Union, Nemanja Đurić, warned that the text of the proposed amendments to the so-called “Mrdić laws”, which were sent to the National Assembly, differs from the text of the law that was sent to the Venice Commission for evaluation.

In a statement to Nova, Djuric states that the changes were noticed through a comparative analysis of documents published on the website of the Venice Commission and the Serbian Parliament.

Djuric was asked what main differences they saw in the documents.

“The difference lies in the selection method and the conditions for electing a new head of the special department for high-tech crime. This whole part was not before the Venice Commission. The other thing is about the members of the commission deciding on binding instructions, decisions on decentralization (prim. aut. the process of transferring some powers and responsibilities to authorities at a lower level) and substitution (prim. aut. an example when senior public prosecutors distribute cases from a lower-level prosecutor’s office to another lower-level prosecutor’s office). What went before the Venice Commission went without any element of hierarchy, because that is what the Commission requested in its urgent opinion. In the Assembly, there is now a part that contains hierarchy – two members of the commission should be from the appeal, two members from a higher level, one member from the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office,” says Djuric.

Also, Djuric warned that seven out of eleven members of the High Prosecutorial Council voted for the laws proposed before the deputies, while a majority of at least eight members is necessary to make decisions.

"We had a statement from the High Prosecutorial Council dated 15/6, and it says that there was no majority of 8 votes for the two decisions, which is required by law. Two members, the statement says, expressed reservations, i.e. disagreement. All the regime's media presented that there was a unanimous majority, which obscures the whole situation," says Djuric.

Nova's interlocutor states that the Judicial Syndicate will soon inform the Venice Commission about the changes in the documents.

"We have been members of the Council of Europe since 2003. The members of the institutions within the Council are academics and experts in many fields. This represents a deception that we tried to play on the Venice Commission, proposing milder versions of the law than those that will be adopted in the Assembly," says Djuric, adding that there is still time to improve things through amendments.

Djuric warns that this situation could be the reason for Serbia's expulsion from the Council of Europe.

“They could have come out and said it was a mistake and that they would solve it through amendments,” says Djuric.

The Minister of Justice denies this.

Danijela Nestorović, an MP from the Ecological Uprising, asked Justice Minister Nenad Vujić in the Serbian Parliament whether the texts of Mrdić's laws that reached parliament were the same as those to which the Venice Commission had access.

In response, the Minister of Justice stated that the texts of the law sent to the Venice Commission are the same as those before the deputies in the Assembly. He described the claims about changes in the texts as fabricated.

"You can compare the invention that was published today, where you have the cited provisions of Article 22 on the composition of the commission. The only difference between what we have today before the people's deputies and what was before the Venice Commission is that the text in the Assembly is in Serbian," says Vujic.

Vujic called on all those who claim otherwise to come forward with the texts received from MPs and the Venice Commission.

"For the sake of the public, the texts are identical, the only difference is in the language because the Venice Commission is looking for an official language, English or French," Vujic reiterated.

“Indicating that the entire text of the amendments to the law has not been sent to the Commission”

On the other hand, Stefan Janjic, a lawyer and member of the SRCE party, tells Nova that there are serious indications that the entire text of the amendments to the law has not been sent to the Venice Commission.

"To be more precise, no transitional and final provisions were sent, which greatly affect the context of all the changes. This practically means that all contested referrals of prosecutors, which took place outside and against the recommendations of the Venice Commission, will continue to flow peacefully," said Janjic.

Nova's interlocutor says that all this clearly shows a tendency to play with the recommendations of the Venice Commission in the "most treacherous way possible."

Otherwise, in January of this year, the government in Serbia approved a package of five amendments to judicial laws, known as the "Mrdić Laws", according to the proposer, SNS MP Uglješa Mrdić.

The changes included laws regulating the work of courts, prosecutors' offices, judges, and the fight against high-tech crime.

The proposal was criticized by the professional public, the High Prosecutorial Council, the High Judicial Council, professional organizations, and the European Commission due to assessments that it threatens the independence of the prosecution and the independence of the judiciary.

Criticism was also related to the procedure, because the laws were not proposed by the Serbian Government, so there was no mandatory public discussion.

The most controversial provision provided for the dismissal of all temporarily appointed prosecutors 30 days after the law’s adoption, which would have left the Organized Crime Prosecution Office without 11 prosecutors, more than half of its composition. After the law entered into force, four of these 11 prosecutors left the TOK.

The laws were sent to the Venice Commission for evaluation, while Brussels requested that they not be implemented pending its opinion.

The GeoPost