DOCSLIB.ORG

Constitutional Provisions on the Prosecution Service in Council of Europe Member States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Constitutional Provisions on the Prosecution Service in Council of Europe Member States Strasbourg, 3 October 2008 CDL-JD(2008)003* Study No. 494/2008 Engl. only EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ON THE PROSECUTION SERVICE IN COUNCIL OF EUROPE MEMBER STATES *This document has been classified restricted on the date of issue. Unless the Venice Commission decides otherwise, it will be declassified a year after its issue according to the rules set up in Resolution CM/Res(2001)6 on access to Council of Europe documents. This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. www.venice.coe.int CDL-JD(2008)003 - 2 - Table of contents I. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 5 II. Overview according to ‘legal families’............................................................................ 5 III. Conclusions............................................................................................................... 6 IV. Common Law system................................................................................................ 7 A. Appointment, incompatibilities, transfers, detachements, promotion, retirement and dissmisal ........................................................................................................................... 7 1. Cyprus................................................................................................................... 7 2. Malta ..................................................................................................................... 7 B. Hierarchical structure; relation with other state bodies............................................... 7 1. Cyprus................................................................................................................... 7 2. Malta ..................................................................................................................... 7 C. Powers ...................................................................................................................... 7 1. Cyprus................................................................................................................... 7 D. Discipline, liability ...................................................................................................... 8 1. Malta ..................................................................................................................... 8 V. French legal family ........................................................................................................ 9 A. Appointment, incompatibilities, transfers, detachements, promotion, retirement and dissmisal ........................................................................................................................... 9 1. Andorra.................................................................................................................. 9 2. Croatia................................................................................................................... 9 3. France ................................................................................................................. 10 4. Greece ................................................................................................................ 11 5. Netherlands ......................................................................................................... 13 6. Spain ................................................................................................................... 13 7. Turkey ................................................................................................................. 13 B. Hierarchical structure; relation with other state bodies............................................. 16 1. Andorra................................................................................................................ 16 2. Greece ................................................................................................................ 16 3. Spain ................................................................................................................... 17 4. Turkey ................................................................................................................. 17 C. Powers .................................................................................................................... 17 1. Andorra................................................................................................................ 17 2. Croatia................................................................................................................. 17 3. France ................................................................................................................. 18 4. Greece ................................................................................................................ 18 5. Spain ................................................................................................................... 19 D. Discipline, liability .................................................................................................... 19 1. Croatia................................................................................................................. 19 2. France ................................................................................................................. 19 3. Greece ................................................................................................................ 19 4. Turkey ................................................................................................................. 20 VI. German legal family................................................................................................. 21 A. Appointment, incompatibilities, transfers, detachements, promotion, retirement and dissmisal ......................................................................................................................... 21 1. Albania ................................................................................................................ 21 2. Bulgaria ............................................................................................................... 21 3. Czech Republic ................................................................................................... 22 4. Finland ................................................................................................................ 22 5. Hungary............................................................................................................... 22 6. Lithuania.............................................................................................................. 23 7. Montenégro ......................................................................................................... 23 8. Poland ................................................................................................................. 24 9. Portugal............................................................................................................... 24 - 3 - CDL-JD(2008)003 10. Romania .......................................................................................................... 24 11. Serbia .............................................................................................................. 24 12. Slovenia........................................................................................................... 26 B. Hierarchical structure; relation with other state bodies............................................. 26 1. Albania ................................................................................................................ 26 2. Austria ................................................................................................................. 26 3. Bulgaria ............................................................................................................... 26 4. Estonia ................................................................................................................ 27 5. Finland ................................................................................................................ 28 6. Hungary............................................................................................................... 28 7. Italy...................................................................................................................... 28 8. Lithuania.............................................................................................................. 28 9. Montenegro ......................................................................................................... 28 10. Portugal ........................................................................................................... 29 11. Slovakia........................................................................................................... 29 12. Romania .......................................................................................................... 30 13. Serbia .............................................................................................................. 30 14. Sweden ........................................................................................................... 30 C. Powers ...................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Synopsis of the Meeting Held in Strasbourg on 21 January 2013
    BUREAU OF THE ASSEMBLY AS/Bur/CB (2013) 01 21 January 2013 TO THE MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY Synopsis of the meeting held in Strasbourg on 21 January 2013 The Bureau of the Assembly, meeting on 21 January 2013 in Strasbourg, with Mr Jean-Claude Mignon, President of the Assembly, in the Chair, as regards: - First part-session of 2013 (Strasbourg, 21-25 January 2013): i. Requests for debates under urgent procedure and current affairs debates: . decided to propose to the Assembly to hold a debate under urgent procedure on “Migration and asylum: mounting tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean” on Thursday 24 January 2013 and to refer this item to the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons for report; . decided to propose to the Assembly to hold the debate under urgent procedure on “Recent developments in Mali and Algeria and the threat to security and human rights in the Mediterranean region” on Thursday 24 January 2013 and to refer this item to the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy for report; . decided not to hold a current affairs debate on “The deteriorating situation in Georgia”; . took note of the decision by the UEL Group to withdraw its request for a current affairs debate on “Political developments in Turkey regarding the human rights of the Kurds and other minorities”; ii. Draft agenda: updated the draft agenda; - Progress report of the Bureau of the Assembly and of the Standing Committee (5 October 2012 – 21 January 2013): (Rapporteur: Mr Kox, Netherlands, UEL): approved the Progress report; - Election observation: i. Presidential election in Armenia (18 February 2013): took note of the press release issued by the pre-electoral mission (Yerevan, 15-18 January 2013) and approved the final composition of the ad hoc committee to observe these elections (Appendix 1); ii.
    [Show full text]
  • Amendments to the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia
    AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA Amendments I through XXIX to the Constitution of Serbia Amendments I through XXIX are an integral part of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, which shall enter into force on the day of promulgation by the National Assembly. A Constitutional Act shall be passed to implement the Amendments I through XXIX of the Constitution. AMENDMENT I Competences The National Assembly shall: 1. adopt and amend the Constitution, 2. decide on changes concerning the borders of the Republic of Serbia, 3. call for the Republic referendum, 4. ratify international contracts when the obligation of their ratification is stipulated by the Law, 5. decide on war and peace and declare state of war and emergency, 6. supervise the work of security services, 7. enact laws and other general acts within the competence of the Republic of Serbia, 8. give previous approval for the Statute of the autonomous province, 9. adopt defense strategy, 10. adopt development plan and spatial plan, 11. adopt the Budget and financial statement of the Republic of Serbia, upon the proposal of the Government, 12. grant amnesty for criminal offenses. Within its election rights, the National Assembly shall: 1. elect the Government, supervise its work and decide on expiry of the term of office of the Government and ministers, 2. appoint and dismiss judges of the Constitutional Court, 3. appoint and dismiss five members of the High Judicial Council, five members of the High Prosecutorial Council, the Supreme Public Prosecutor of Serbia and public prosecutors, 4. appoint and dismiss the Governor of the National Bank of Serbia and supervise his/her work, 5.
    [Show full text]
  • The Latins of Cyprus Published by the Research, Studies and Publications Service of the House of Representatives, Republic of Cyprus
    The Latins of Cyprus Published by the Research, Studies and Publications Service of the House of Representatives, Republic of Cyprus Coordination and supervision Georgia Andronikou, Service Director Anthi Tofari, Senior Ofcer for Research, Studies and Publications Research and texts Natassa Haralambous Andreas Papayiannis Sofa Papadopoulou Marianna Moyseos Elena Makrygiorgie Editing Natassa Haralambous Andreas Papayiannis Sofa Papadopoulou Translation Anastasia Korae Design Athena Sheittani Printing Government Printing Ofce ISBN 978-9963-39-084-4 (print) ISBN 978-9963-39-087-8 (ebook) © House of Representatives, Nicosia, November 2020 Javal Nechrou Avenue, 1402 Nicosia, Cyprus telephone: +357 22407315, fax: +357 22407290 [email protected], www.parliament.cy Table of contents Preface 7 Message by the Representative of the Latin religious group 9 Publisher’s note 11 Name and origin 13 The settlement and the frst years of the Latin Church in Cyprus 14 The Latin Church in Cyprus during the Frankish Rule and the Venetian Rule 15 The Latin Church in Cyprus during the Turkish Rule 19 The Latin Church in Cyprus during the British Rule 20 The Latin Church in Cyprus from Independence to date 21 Latin infuences on the Orthodox church architecture 22 Walls and fortresses during the period of the Frankish Rule and the Venetian Rule 25 Music 29 The assizes of the kingdom of Jerusalem and Cyprus 30 Infuences on Literature 31 Efect of the Latins on the Cypriot dialect 33 Toponyms related to the times of the Frankish Rule and the Venetian Rule 34 The
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of the Constitution
    CYPRUS PROBLEM: Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus file:///home/taygeti/Desktop/kupros/valmena/constitution... OVERVIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION The Republic of Cyprus was born in the early hours of 16 August 1960. On that date the Republic´s constitution was signed by the lst Governor of the Colony of Cyprus, Sir Hugh Foot, the Consul-General of Greece, George Christopoulos, his Turkish counterpart, Turel, and Archbishop Makarios and Dr. Fazil Kutchuk on behalf of the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities. The range of signatories reflected the fact that the constitution of Cyprus did not emanate from the free will of its people, who were not consulted either directly or through their ad hoc elected representatives, but from the Zurich Agreement between Greece and Turkey. The terms of that agreement, outlined in the last chapter, were included in the constitution as fundamental Articles, which could not be revised or amended. The constitution was drafted by the Joint Constitutional Commission created under Part VIII of the London Agreement of 19 February 1959. It comprised representatives of Greece, Turkey, the Greek Cypriot community and the Turkish Cypriot community. But the structure of the constitution again reflected the Zurich Agreement, with various provisions from the 1950 Greek constitution also incorporated along with the provisions of the European Convention of Human Rights in respect of fundamental rights and liberties. Two main principles underpinned the constitutional structure agreed at Zurich. The first recognised the existence of two communities on the island - the Greek and the Turkish - who, despite their numerical disparity, were given equal treatment.
    [Show full text]
  • Serbia and Montenegro
    ATTACKS ON JUSTICE – SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO Highlights Serbia and Montenegro (the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia until February 2003) entered the process of democratic transition, the creation of a system based on the rule of law, much later than other former socialist countries. On 4 February 2003 the new state union of Serbia and Montenegro was proclaimed. Under the Constitutional Charter of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, there is only one instance of Serbia and Montenegro having a common judiciary – the Court of Serbia and Montenegro. Otherwise, each state – the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Montenegro – has its own internal courts system. A set of important judicial reforms came into force on 1 March 2002 in the Republic of Serbia and in July 2002 amendments to these laws were made that violate the principle of separation of powers and the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. In Montenegro, several laws relating to the judiciary were passed or amended during 2003. On 19 March 2003, the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia dismissed 35 judges from office, including seven Supreme Court judges, amid accusations that the judiciary had failed to take tougher measures in dealing with remnants of the former regime as well as in prosecuting organized crime. The legal system in Serbia and Montenegro is still characterized by a number of contradictory and inconsistent regulations, resulting in legal insecurity. BACKGROUND On March 2002 officials of the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Montenegro signed a procedural agreement for the restructuring of relations between both states in Belgrade, in the presence of the high representative of the EU,.
    [Show full text]
  • 135 Ipu Assembly and Related Meetings
    135th IPU ASSEMBLY AND RELATED MEETINGS Geneva, 23 – 27.10.2016 Governing Council CL/199/5(b)-R.1 Item 5 26 September 2016 Interim report by the Secretary General on the activities of the IPU since the 198th session of the Governing Council (b) International Day of Democracy 2016 In November 2007, the United Nations General Assembly designated 15 September as the International Day of Democracy. The ninth celebration of this Day was observed in 2016 by a large number of parliaments, governments, civil society organizations, international organizations and the IPU. Democracy 2030 was the theme chosen by the IPU for the 2016 edition of the International Day of Democracy. As at 23 September 2016, a total of 17 parliaments1 reported having taken some action to celebrate the International Day of Democracy. A summary of parliamentary activities is annexed to this report. The theme of Democracy 2030 was widely used and parliaments benefited from the theme’s significant flexibility. Descriptions of parliamentary events and all the materials produced by the IPU for the Day are available at www.ipu.org/idd. The United Nations followed the IPU’s lead and adopted Democracy and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development as its theme for the International Day. Key messages on Democracy 2030 were developed in the IPU press release for the Day, which was widely shared on social media. The theme questioned the ways in which parliaments will function in the future, how they will engage and involve youth, and the importance of democracy for the 2030 Agenda. The discussion on the future of democracy was highly relevant at a time when new technologies are enhancing the ability of parliaments to engage more directly with citizens.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Rights and Freedoms of National Minorities: the Experience of Serbia
    Opción, Año 35, Especial No.23 (2019): 1433-1446 ISSN 1012-1587/ISSNe: 2477-9385 Constitutional rights and freedoms of national minorities: The Experience of Serbia Konstantin A. Polovchenko MGIMO University, Moscow [email protected] Abstract The method of case study allowed a comprehensive review of the institution for the protection of the rights of national minorities in the system of constitutional rights and freedoms in Serbia. As a result, more than a third of the constitutional text is devoted to the regulation of the institution for the protection of rights and freedoms. The author concluded that the Republic of Serbia has created a reliable mechanism for protecting the national minorities’ rights meeting the highest international standards; the Serbian legal system ensures sustainable development of its citizens. Keywords: Constitutional, Principles, Court, Legal, Minority. Derechos y libertades constitucionales de las minorías nacionales: La experiencia de Serbia Resumen El método de estudio de caso permitió una revisión exhaustiva de la institución para la protección de los derechos de las minorías nacionales en el sistema de derechos y libertades constitucionales en Serbia. Como resultado, más de un tercio del texto constitucional está dedicado a la regulación de la institución para la protección de los derechos y libertades. El autor llegó a la conclusión de que la República de Serbia ha creado un mecanismo confiable para proteger los derechos de las minorías nacionales que cumplen con los más altos estándares internacionales; El sistema jurídico serbio garantiza el desarrollo sostenible de sus ciudadanos. Palabras clave: Constitucional, Principios, Corte, Legal, Minoría. Recibido: 18-02-2019 Aceptado: 22-06-2019 1434 Konstantin A.
    [Show full text]
  • The National Councils of National Minorities in Serbia
    The national councils of national minorities in Serbia Katinka Beretka* and István Gergő Székely** January 2016 Recommended citation: Beretka Katinka and Székely István Gergő, “The national councils of national minorities in the Republic of Serbia”, Online Compendium Autonomy Arraignments in the World, January 2016, at www.world-autonomies.info. © 2016 Autonomy Arrangements in the World Content 1. Essential Facts and Figures 2. Autonomy in the Context of the State Structure 3. Establishment and Implementation of Autonomy 4. Legal Basis of Autonomy 5. Autonomous Institutions 6. Autonomous Powers 7. Financial Arrangements 8. Intergovernmental Relations 9. Inter-group Relations within the Autonomous Entity (not applicable) 10. Membership, “Quasi-citizenship” and Special Rights 11. General Assessment and Outlook Bibliography 2016 © Autonomy Arrangements in the World Project 1. Essential Facts and Figures 1 Serbia is located in the center of the Balkans, being an everyday subject of world news from the beginning of the 1990s, often due to ethnicity-related issues, ranging from civil war and secession to autonomy arrangements meant to accommodate ethnocultural diversity. Although according to the 2011 census almost 20% of the total population of the state (without Kosovo) belong to a minority group (see Table 1), in Serbia there are no officially recognized or unrecognized minorities. There is neither an exact enumeration of minority groups, nor clear principles to be followed about how a minority should be recognized. While the absence of precise regulations may be regarded as problematic, the approach of Serbia to the minority question can also be interpreted as being rather liberal, which may have resulted from the intention to protect ethnic Serb refugees who have become minorities abroad, including in the former Yugoslav member states.
    [Show full text]
  • Post-Legislative Scrutiny International Principles and Oversight in Kosovo
    Post-legislative scrutiny International principles and oversight in Kosovo Pristina, September 2020 www.kas.de Post-legislative scrutiny: International principles and oversight in Kosovo Pristina, September 2020 This publication was made possible through support provided by the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung Office in Pristina. Prepared by: Copyright © 2020. Democracy Plus (D+) All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system without permission in writing from D+. The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Konrad Adenauer Stiftung. Table of contents ACRONYMS 6 1. INTRODUCTION 7 2. PRINCIPLES OF POST-LEGISLATIVE SCRUTINY 8 3. INTERNATIONAL TRENDS IN POST-LEGISLATIVE SCRUTINY BY PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES 11 3.1 Four Approaches (Passive, Informal, Formal, and Independent) to Parliamentary Committee Scrutiny in European Countries 11 3.2 Post-Legislative Scrutiny by European Affairs Committees in National Parliaments 12 Case Studies of EU Member States and EU Aspirant States 12 Lithuania - Role of “Seimas” (Parliament) towards EU Integration 13 Moldova - Parliamentary Challenges to EU Membership 15 Montenegro - Functionality of the European Integration Committee in the Montenegrin Parliament 17 4. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE OVERSIGHT ROLE OF THE ASSEMBLY OF KOSOVO THROUGH POST- LEGISLATIVE SCRUTINY 19 4.1 Legal Framework: 19 4.2 Application of Post-Legislative Scrutiny by the Assembly 20 4.3 Post-Legislative Scrutiny Process by the Government 22 4.4 Challenges of the Assembly in Post-Legislative Scrutiny 24 4.5 Analysis of PLS Reports 26 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Participants in the Interparliamentary Conference, 14-15 June 2018
    Interparliamentary Conference UPHOLDING THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, INCLUDING MEDIA FREEDOM, IN THE EU AND BEYOND with Members of the European Parliament and the Pre-Accession Countries' Parliaments Organised by the European Parliament (Democracy Support and Election Co-ordination Group in cooperation with the Committees on Culture and Education and on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and on Foreign Affairs) and the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic Prague, 14-15 June 2018 Venue : Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic Prague (Czech Republic) LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Contact: Mr Thierry Jacob [email protected] +32 2 28 42277 European Parliament, Directorate for Democracy Support, Pre-Accession Actions Unit EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Ms Barbara SPINELLI Vice-Chair of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs Substitute Member of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left) Ms Michaela ŠOJDROVÁ Member of the Committee on Culture and Education and of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, Substitute Member of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and of the Subcommittee on Human Rights (Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats)) Mr Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ Member of the Committees on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and on Budgetary Control (Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats)) Ms Eleni THEOCHAROUS Member of the Committee on Development and
    [Show full text]
  • Government of Montenegro
    Government of Montenegro Ministry of European Integration Questionnaire Information requested by the European Commission to the Government of Montenegro for the preparation of the Opinion on the application of Montenegro for membership of the European Union I Democracy and the rule of law Minister: Gordana Djurovic Podgorica, December 2009 I Democracy and the rule of law 2 I Democracy and the rule of law TABLE OF CONTENTS POLITICAL CRITERIA....................................................................................................................5 I Democracy and the rule of law.....................................................................................................6 3 I Democracy and the rule of law 4 I Democracy and the rule of law POLITICAL CRITERIA 5 I Democracy and the rule of law I Democracy and the rule of law Constitution 1. Please provide a brief description of the constitutional and institutional situation in Montenegro. Montenegro, as the youngest member state of UN and other international, political, economic and other associations and integrations, adopted the new Constitution of Montenegro on 22 October 2007. Montenegro is an independent and sovereign state, with the republican form of government. Montenegro is a civil, democratic, ecological and the state of social justice, based on the rule of law. Bearer of sovereignty is the citizen with Montenegrin citizenship. The citizen shall exercise power directly and through the freely elected representatives. The power not stemming from the freely expressed will of the citizens in democratic election in accordance with the law, can neither be established nor recognised. The Constitution stipulates that the power shall be regulated following the principle of the division of powers into the legislative, executive and judicial. The legislative power shall be exercised by the Parliament, the executive power by the Government and the judicial by courts.
    [Show full text]
  • UNDP RS NARS and Indepen
    The National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia Serbia AND INDEPENDENT BODIES SERBIA THE REPUBLIC OF OF ASSEMBLY NATIONAL NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA AND INDEPENDENT BODIES 253 NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA AND INDEPENDENT BODIES NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA AND INDEPENDENT BODIES Materials from the Conference ”National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia and Independent Bodies” Belgrade, 26-27 November 2009 and an Overview of the Examples of International Practice Olivera PURIĆ UNDP Deputy Resident Representative a.i. Edited by Boris ČAMERNIK, Jelena MANIĆ and Biljana LEDENIČAN The following have participated: Velibor POPOVIĆ, Maja ŠTERNIĆ, Jelena MACURA MARINKOVIĆ Translated by: Novica PETROVIĆ Isidora VLASAK English text revised by: Charles ROBERTSON Design and layout Branislav STANKOVIĆ Copy editing Jasmina SELMANOVIĆ Printing Stylos, Novi Sad Number of copies 150 in English language and 350 in Serbian language For the publisher United Nations Development Programme, Country Office Serbia Internacionalnih brigada 69, 11000 Beograd, +381 11 2040400, www.undp.org.rs ISBN – 978-86-7728-125-0 The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the United Nations and the United Nations Development Programme. Acknowledgement We would like to thank all those whose hard work has made this publication possible. We are particularly grateful for the guidance and support of the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia, above all from the Cabinet of the Speaker and the Secretariat. A special debt of gratitude is owed to the representatives of the independent regulatory bodies; the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection, the State Audit Institution, the Ombudsman of the Republic of Serbia and the Anti-corruption Agency.
    [Show full text]