DOCSLIB.ORG

2010 Annual Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2010 Annual Report The Venice Commission 2010 Annual activity report 100 95 75 25 European Commission for Democracy through Law 5 COUNCIL CONSEIL OF EUROPE DE L’EUROPE 0 Member states of the Venice Commission, 2011 Members – 57 Kyrgyzstan (1.01.2004) Ukraine (3.02.1997) Latvia (11.09.1995) United Kingdom (1.06.1999) Albania (14.10.1996) Liechtenstein (26.08.1991) Algeria (1.12.2007) Lithuania (27.04.1994) Associate member Andorra (1.02.2000) Luxembourg (10.05.1990) Armenia (27.03.2001) Malta (10.05.1990) Belarus (24.11.1994) Austria (10.05.1990) Mexico (3.02.2010) Azerbaijan (1.03.2001) Moldova (25.06.1996) Observers – 7 Belgium (10.05.1990) Monaco (5.10.2004) Bosnia and Herzegovina (24.04.2002) Montenegro (20.06.2006) Argentina (20.04.1995) Brazil 01.04.2009) Morocco (1.06.2007) Canada (23.05.1991) Bulgaria (29.05.1992) Netherlands (1.08.1992) Holy See (13.01.1992) Chile (1.10.2005) Norway (10.05.1990) Japan (18.06.1993) Croatia (1.01.1997) Peru (11.02.2009) Kazakhstan (30.04.1998) Cyprus (10.05.1990) Poland (30.04.1992) United States (10.10.1991) Czech Republic (1.11.1994) Portugal (10.05.1990) Uruguay (19.10.1995) Denmark (10.05.1990) Romania (26.05.1994) Estonia (3.04.1995) Russian Federation (1.01.2002) Participants – 4 Finland (10.05.1990) San Marino (10.05.1990) France (10.05.1990) Serbia (3.04.2003). European Commission Georgia (1.10.1999) Slovakia (8.07.1993) EU Committee of the Regions Germany (3.07.1990) Slovenia (2.03.1994) OSCE/ODIHR Greece (10.05.1990) Spain (10.05.1990) International Association of Constitutional Hungary (28.11.1990) Sweden (10.05.1990) Law (IACL) Iceland (5.07.1993) Switzerland (10.05.1990) Ireland (10.05.1990) “The former Yugoslav Republic of Special co-operation status – 2 Israel (1.05.2008) Macedonia” (19.02.1996) Italy (10.05.1990) Tunisia (1.04.2010) Palestinian National Authority Republic of Korea (1.06.2006) Turkey (10.05.1990) South Africa 100 95 75 25 5 0 European Commission for Democracy through Law The Council of Europe’s Venice Commission 2010 annual activity report Council of Europe, 2011 European Commission for Democracy through Law – Venice Commission, Council of Europe F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex www.venice.coe.int © Council of Europe 2011 Photos © Council of Europe, Shutterstock, Tomo Jesenicnik, kameel – fotolia.com Printed at the Council of Europe Foreword One of the highlights for the Venice Commission in 2010 range of its partners is widening. Additional European was the celebration of its 20th anniversary on 5 June. countries are now interested in working with the Venice Commission. An example is its co-operation with Turkey The high-level participation from Council of Europe bod- on judicial reforms and its opinion on the Electoral Code ies, international institutions and member states – both of Norway. At the same time, non-European countries are European and non-European – shows that the history of turning more and more to the Venice Commission for ad- the Venice Commission is a successful one. The Council of vice. In 2010, the increase in activities in central Asia was Europe acted with much foresight when it established the the main example. In 2011 the wave of change that swept Venice Commission a few months after the fall of the over North African and other Arab countries will be a Berlin Wall. It very soon became clear that the Venice major challenge for the Venice Commission. The Venice Commission would have an important role to play in Commission will therefore be a key element of the Coun- bringing the new democracies in central and eastern cil of Europe’s neighbourhood policy. Europe closer to attaining the Council of Europe values of democracy, the rule of law and human rights. This again shows that the main strength of the Venice Commission is that it is a part of the Council of Europe It was less obvious at the time that this role of the Venice and based on the universal values of this organisation. Commission would continue for such a long period of The Venice Commission can be effective only thanks to time and that its importance would continue to increase the support from the Council of Europe’s bodies, in par- after the first phase of the transition. Looking at the ticular the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary present report, it is easy to see that the scope of issues Assembly. In addition, its flexible working methods and dealt with by the Venice Commission is becoming ever its close co-operation with other international organisa- broader. On the one hand, the Venice Commission contin- tions, first of all with the European Union but also with ues to be the main interlocutor in 2010 for important con- the OSCE, are key elements of its success. stitutional reform processes in countries such as Georgia, 3 Kyrgyzstan, Moldova and Ukraine. On the other hand, The Venice Commission stands ready to continue assist- the Venice Commission dealt with complex and sensitive ing European states in their reform process and at the legislation implementing the constitutions in a large same time is ready to take on new challenges beyond the number of European and, increasingly, non-European borders of our continent. The Venice Commission wel- countries. comes these new challenges as new opportunities. While the Venice’s Commission’s co-operation with its Thomas Markert, traditional partner countries is deepening in this way, the Director, Secretary of the Venice Commission 2010 annual activity report Contents Foreword Working for democracy through law An overview of Venice Commission activities in 2010 . 9 The Venice Commission: an introduction . 9 The Commission in 2010 . 16 Celebration of the 20th anniversary of the The Commission and non-European states. 20 Commission. 14 Democratic development of public institutions and respect for human rights Country-specific activities . 23 Transnational activities. 41 Constitutional justice, ordinary justice and ombudsman Country-specific activities . 49 Regional co-operation. 60 Transnational activities . 58 Transnational activities – ordinary judiciary. 63 Democracy through free and fair elections Country-specific activities . 71 International co-operation in the electoral field . 85 Transnational activities . 79 Co-operation with other organs and bodies of the Council of Europe, the European Union and other international organisations Council of Europe. 89 United Nations . 96 5 European Union . 92 Commonwealth of Independent States . 96 OSCE/ODIHR . 95 Other international bodies . 96 Appendices Member countries. 101 Publications . 109 The Venice Commission. 102 Documents adopted in 2010 . 112 Offices and sub-commissions . 107 2010 annual activity report Working for democracy through law Working for democracy through law An overview of Venice Commission activities in 2010 TVHE ENICE COMMISSION: AN INTRODUCTION The European Commission for Democracy through Law, The Commission has the prime function of providing better known as the Venice Commission,1 is a Council of constitutional assistance to states, mainly, but not exclu- Europe independent consultative body on issues of con- sively, those which participate in its activities.3 Such assis- stitutional law, including the functioning of democratic tance takes the form of opinions prepared by the institutions and fundamental rights, electoral law and Commission at the request not only of states, but also of constitutional justice. Its members are independent ex- organs of the Council of Europe, more specifically the Par- perts. Set up in 1990 under a partial agreement between 18 liamentary Assembly, Committee of Ministers, Congress Council of Europe member states, it has subsequently of Local and Regional Authorities and Secretary General, played a decisive role in the adoption and implementa- as well as of other international organisations or bodies tion of constitutions in keeping with Europe’s constitu- which participate in its activities. These opinions relate to tional heritage.2 The Commission holds four plenary draft constitutions or constitutional amendments, or to sessions a year in Venice, working mainly in three fields: other draft legislation in the field of constitutional law. constitutional assistance, constitutional justice and elec- The Commission has thus made an often crucial contribu- tion and referendum issues. In 2002, once all Council of tion to the development of constitutional law, mainly, al- Europe member states had joined, the Commission though not exclusively, in the new democracies of central became an enlarged agreement of which non-European and eastern Europe. states could become full members. In 2010, it had 57 full The aim of the assistance given by the Venice Commis- members and 13 other entities formally associated with its sion is to provide a complete, precise, detailed and objec- work. It is financed by its member states on a proportional tive analysis not only of compatibility with European and basis which follows the same criteria as applied to the international standards, but also of the practicality and Council of Europe as a whole. This system guarantees the viability of the solutions envisaged by the states con- 9 Commission’s independence vis-à-vis those states which cerned. The Commission’s recommendations and sugges- request its assistance. tions are largely based on common European experience in this sphere. 1. For more information, please refer to the Venice Commission’s website: http://www.venice.coe.int/. 2. On the concept of the constitutional heritage of Europe, see, inter alia, “The Constitutional Heritage of Europe”, proceedings of the UniDem seminar organised jointly by the Commission and the 3. Article 3, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Commission specifies Centre d’études et de recherches comparatives constitutionnelles et that any state which is not a member of the agreement may benefit politiques (CERCOP), Montpellier, 22 and 23 November 1996, “Sci- from the activities of the Commission by making a request to the ence and technique of democracy”, No.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bosnia and Herzegovina Joint Opinion on the Legal
    Strasbourg, Warsaw, 9 December 2019 CDL-AD(2019)026 Opinion No. 951/2019 Or. Engl. ODIHR Opinion Nr.:FoA-BiH/360/2019 EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) OSCE OFFICE FOR DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS (OSCE/ODIHR) BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA JOINT OPINION ON THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING THE FREEDOM OF PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, IN ITS TWO ENTITIES AND IN BRČKO DISTRICT Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 121st Plenary Session (Venice, 6-7 December 2019) On the basis of comments by Ms Claire BAZY-MALAURIE (Member, France) Mr Paolo CAROZZA (Member, United States of America) Mr Nicolae ESANU (Substitute member, Moldova) Mr Jean-Claude SCHOLSEM (substitute member, Belgium) This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. www.venice.coe.int CDL-AD(2019)026 - 2 - Table of Contents I. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 3 II. Background and Scope of the Opinion ...................................................................... 4 III. International Standards .............................................................................................. 5 IV. Legal context and legislative competence .................................................................. 6 V. Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 8 A. Definitions of public assembly ..................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Russian Federation Interim Opinion on Constitutional
    Strasbourg, 23 March 2021 CDL-AD(2021)005 Opinion No. 992/2020 Or. Engl. EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) RUSSIAN FEDERATION INTERIM OPINION ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS AND THE PROCEDURE FOR THEIR ADOPTION Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 126th Plenary Session (online, 19-20 March 2021) on the basis of comments by Mr Nicos ALIVIZATOS (Member, Greece) Ms Claire BAZY MALAURIE (Member, France) Ms Veronika BÍLKOVÁ (Member, Czech Republic) Mr Iain CAMERON (Member, Sweden) Ms Monika HERMANNS (Substitute Member, Germany) Mr Martin KUIJER (Substitute Member, Netherlands) This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. www.venice.coe.int CDL-AD(2021)005 - 2 - Contents I. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3 II. Scope of the present opinion .......................................................................................... 4 III. Chronology of the preparation and adoption of the constitutional amendments ............. 4 IV. Analysis of the procedure for the Adoption of the Constitutional Amendments .............. 6 A. Speed of preparation of the amendments - consultations ........................................... 6 B. Competence of the Constitutional Court ..................................................................... 7 C. Competence of the Constitutional Assembly .............................................................. 7 D. Ad hoc procedure .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Slovakia Request by the President Pertaining to The
    Strasbourg, 21 February 2017 CDL-REF(2017)008 Opinion No. 877 / 2017 Engl. only EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) SLOVAKIA REQUEST BY THE PRESIDENT PERTAINING TO THE APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT WITH REASONING FOR THE QUESTIONS ASKED AND ATTACHMENTS This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. www.venice.coe.int SLOVAK REPUBLIC RULING of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic PL. ÚS 4/2012 -77 On October 24, 2012, the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, in the Plenary consisting of its President Ms. Ivetta Macejková and Judges Ján Auxt, Peter Brňák, Ľubomír Dobrík, Ľudmila Gajdošíková, Juraj Horváth, Sergej Kohut, Ján Luby, Milan Ľalík, Lajos Mészáros, Marianna Mochnáčová, Ladislav Orosz and Rudolf Tkáčik deliberated in a closed session the petition from a group of Members of National Council of the Slovak Republic (MPs), represented by R. P. (MP), seeking interpretation of Article 102 para. 1 (t) and Article 150 of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic and renders the following Interpretation: President of the Slovak Republic has a duty to deal with the proposal of the National Council of the Slovak Republic to appoint the Prosecutor General of the Slovak Republic pursuant to Article 150 of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic and, where the latter has been elected in a procedure in accordance with law, to either appoint the nominated candidate within a reasonable period of time, or inform the National Council of the Slovak Republic
    [Show full text]
  • Venice Commission)
    Strasbourg, 16 April 2020 CDL-PI(2020)003 Engl. only EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) COMPILATION OF VENICE COMMISSION OPINIONS AND REPORTS ON STATES OF EMERGENCY 2 CDL-PI(2020)003 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 3 I. BENCHMARKS ............................................................................................................. 4 II. Declaration of state of emergency: definition and substantive requirements ......... 5 III. Derogation from human rights obligations .............................................................. 10 IV. Constitutional entrenchment of the state of emergency ......................................... 12 V. Declaration of state of emergency: competences ................................................... 14 VI. Oversight of the declaration and prolongation of the state of emergency ............ 14 a. Parliamentary oversight ......................................................................................... 14 b. Judicial review ........................................................................................................ 18 VII. Duration of the state of emergency .......................................................................... 21 VIII. Duration of the emergency measures ...................................................................... 22 IX Scope of the emergency measures .........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines on Political Party Regulation 2Nd Edition
    Strasbourg, 14 December 2020 CDL-AD(2020)032 Study No. 881/2017 Or. Engl. EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) OSCE OFFICE FOR DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS (OSCE/ODIHR) GUIDELINES ON POLITICAL PARTY REGULATION 2ND EDITION Approved by the Council of Democratic Elections at its 69th online meeting (7 October 2020) and Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 125th online Plenary Session (11-12 December 2020) on the basis of comments by OSCE/ODIHR Core Group of Experts on Political Parties Mr Josep Maria CASTELLA ANDREU (Member, Spain) Mr Pieter van DIJK (Expert, Former Member, the Netherlands) Mr Nicolae ESANU (Substitute Member, Republic of Moldova) Mr Ben VERMEULEN (Member, the Netherlands) This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. www.venice.coe.int CDL-AD(2020)032 - 2 - Table of contents I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 5 II. POLITICAL PARTIES: THEIR IMPORTANCE, FUNCTIONS AND REGULATION ............ 7 1. The classification and importance of political parties and their functions ........................ 7 2. Three dimensions ........................................................................................................... 8 3. Two models ..................................................................................................................... 9 III. PRINCIPLES ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Opinion on the Fourth Amendment to The
    Strasbourg, 17 June 2013 CDL-AD(2013)012 Opinion 720 / 2013 Or. Engl. EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) OPINION ON THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF HUNGARY Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 95th Plenary Session (Venice, 14-15 June 2013) on the basis of comments by Mr Christoph GRABENWARTER (Member, Austria) Mr Wolfgang HOFFMANN-RIEM (Member, Germany) Ms Hanna SUCHOCKA (Member, Poland) Mr Kaarlo TUORI (Member, Finland) Mr Jan VELAERS (Member, Belgium) This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. www.venice.coe.int CDL-AD(2013)012 - 2 - Table of contents I. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3 II. Preliminary remarks ...................................................................................................... 3 III. Amendments to the Chapters “Foundation” and “Freedom and Responsibility” of the Fundamental Law ................................................................................................................. 6 A. The protection of marriage and family (Article 1) ....................................................... 6 B. Communist past (Article 3) ........................................................................................ 6 C. The recognition of churches (Article 4) ...................................................................... 8 D. Media access for political parties (Article 5.1) .........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • CDL-AD(2005)041 Opinion No
    Strasbourg, 19 Decembre 2005 CDL-AD(2005)041 Opinion no. 343 / 2005 Or.Engl. EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) OPINION ON THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE EXISTING LEGISLATION IN MONTENEGRO CONCERNING THE ORGANISATION OF REFERENDUMS WITH APPLICABLE INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 65th Plenary Session, (Venice, 16-17 December 2005) on the basis of comments by Mr Anthony BRADLEY (Substitute Member, United Kingdom) Mr Carlos CLOSA MONTERO (Member, Spain) Mr Kaarlo TUORI (Member, Finland) This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. Ce document ne sera pas distribué en réunion. Prière de vous munir de cet exemplaire. - 2 - CDL-AD(2005)041 Table of Contents Page I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................3 II. A PREREQUISITE: RESPECT FOR GOOD PRACTICE IN ELECTORAL MATTERS.5 III. REQUIRED LEVEL OF PARTICIPATION AND MAJORITY REQUIREMENTS.....7 IV. CRITERIA FOR ELIGIBILITY TO VOTE......................................................................11 V. CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................................................16 - 3 - CDL-AD(2005)041 I. INTRODUCTION 1. On 27 May 2005, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe requested an opinion of the Venice Commission on the compatibility with applicable international standards of the existing legislation in Montenegro concerning the organisation of referendums, with a special focus on the issues of required turnout, majority and the criteria for the eligibility to vote. 2. This request refers to the plan of the Montenegrin authorities to organise a referendum on the independence of the country. At present, on the basis of the Constitutional Charter, which entered into force on 4 February 2003, Montenegro is a member state of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro.
    [Show full text]
  • Hungary Opinion on Act Xxv of 4 April 2017 on The
    Strasbourg, 9 October 2017 CDL-AD(2017)022 Opinion 891 / 2017 Or. Engl. EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) HUNGARY OPINION ON ACT XXV OF 4 APRIL 2017 ON THE AMENDMENT OF ACT CCIV OF 2011 ON NATIONAL TERTIARY EDUCATION Endorsed by the Venice Commission at its 111th Plenary Session (Venice, 6-7 October 2017) on the basis of comments by: Ms R. KIENER (Member, Switzerland) Mr B. VERMEULEN (Member, The Netherlands) Mr D. FARRINGTON (Expert, DGII, Council of Europe) This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. www.venice.coe.int 2 CDL-AD(2017)022 CONTENT I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 3 II. PRELIMINARY REMARKS ........................................................................................... 3 A. Background .............................................................................................................. 3 1. Constitutional and legal framework ......................................................................... 3 2. Act XXV of 2017 amending the 2011 HEA .............................................................. 6 a. New requirements for foreign universities ............................................................ 6 b. Scope of application ............................................................................................ 7 B. Scope of the Opinion ............................................................................................. 11 C.
    [Show full text]
  • Opinion on the Draft Law on The
    Strasbourg, 20 June 2011 CDL-AD(2011)019 Opinion No. 624 / 2011 Or. Engl. EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) OPINION ON THE DRAFT LAW ON THE COUNCIL FOR THE SELECTION OF JUDGES OF KYRGYZSTAN Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 87 th Plenary Session (Venice, 17-18 June 2011) on the basis of comments by Mr Nicolae ESANU (Member, Moldova) Mr Latif HÜSEYNOV (Member, Azerbaijan) This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. www.venice.coe.int CDL-AD(2011)019 - 2 - I. Introduction 1. By a letter of 5 April 2011, Ms Galina Skripkina, Chairperson of the Committee on Constitutional Legislation, State Structure, Legality and Local Self-Governance of the Parliament of Kyrgyzstan (Jogorku Kenesh), has made a request for an opinion on the following three draft Laws: - “the draft Constitutional Law on the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court” (subject of Opinion 622/2011); - “the draft Constitutional Law on the introduction of changes to the Constitutional Law on the Status of Judges” (subject of Opinion 623/2011); - “the draft Law on the Council for the Selection of Judges” (hereinafter the “draft Law”, subject to the present opinion). 2. As part of a judicial reform package, the Parliament of Kyrgyzstan had also prepared two other draft Laws (on Judicial Self-Government and on the Supreme Court and Local Courts), which were, however, not submitted to the Venice Commission for opinion due to the very short deadlines and the heavy workload of the Venice Commission in preparing the first three opinions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of the Second Chamber in European States
    Strasbourg, 1 March/1er mars 2006 CDL(2006)011 Or. Bil. Study No. 335/2005 EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) COMMISSION EUROPEENNE POUR LA DEMOCRATIE PAR LE DROIT (COMMISSION DE VENISE) THE ROLE OF THE SECOND CHAMBER IN EUROPEAN STATES LE ROLE DE LA DEUXIEME CHAMBRE DANS LES ETATS EUROPEENS CONTRIBUTIONS BY VENICE COMMISSION MEMBERS CONTRIBUTIONS DES MEMBRES DE LA COMMISSION DE VENISE This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. Ce document ne sera pas distribué en réunion. Prière de vous munir de cet exemplaire. CDL(2006)011 - 2 - TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE DES MATIERES Page THE SECOND CHAMBERS OF PARLIAMENT, by Christoph Grabenwarter, Constitutional Court, Vienna, Substitute Member, Austria......................................................................................3 LE SENAT DE BELGIQUE, par Jean-Claude Scholsem, Université de Liège, Membre, Belgique ..............................................................................................................................................7 ROLE OF THE SECOND HOUSE OF THE PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, by Cazim Sadikovic, University of Sarajevo, Member, Bosnia and Herzegovina......................................................................................................................................12 THE ROLE OF THE SECOND CHAMBER IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC: THE SENATE OF THE PARLIAMENT OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC, by Eliska Wagnerova, Constitutional Court, Brno, Member, Czech Republic...........................................................................................16
    [Show full text]
  • Opinion on the Draft Law on the Courts of Bosnia and Herzegovina (CDL-REF(2013)023)1
    Strasbourg, 15 June 2013 CDL-AD(2013)015 Or. Engl. Opinion no. 723 / 2013 EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) OPINION ON THE DRAFT LAW ON THE COURTS OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 95th Plenary Session (Venice, 14-15 June 2013) on the basis of comments by Ms Veronika BILKOVA (Member, Czech Republic) Mr James HAMILTON (Substitute member, Ireland) Mr Konstantine VARDZELASHVILI (Substitute member, Georgia) This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. www.venice.coe.int CDL-AD(2013)015 - 2 - Table of Contents I. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 II. General remarks .......................................................................................................... 3 III. Draft Law on the Courts of Bosnia and Herzegovina .................................................... 4 A. Articles 1 (subject matter) and 2 (objective) ............................................................. 5 B. Article 3 (seat and seal) ........................................................................................... 5 C. Article 4 (composition and number of judges) .......................................................... 5 D. Article 6 (accountability) .......................................................................................... 6 E. Article 7 (Protection of Rights) ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Kosovo Opinion on the Draft Law on The
    Strasbourg, 14 December 2020 CDL-AD(2020)034 Opinion No. 1005/2020 Or. Engl. EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) KOSOVO OPINION ON THE DRAFT LAW ON THE GOVERNMENT Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 125th online Plenary Session (11-12 December 2020) on the basis of comments by Ms Nadia BERNOUSSI (Member, Morocco) Mr Philip DIMITROV (Member, Bulgaria) Mr Murray HUNT (Substitute Member, United Kingdom) Mr Francesco MAIANI (Member, San Marino) Mr Bertrand MATHIEU (Member, Monaco) This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. www.venice.coe.int CDL-AD(2020)034 - 2 - Contents I. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3 II. Preliminary observations ............................................................................................... 3 III. Domestic legal context .................................................................................................. 4 A. Constitutional context ................................................................................................ 4 B. The draft Law ............................................................................................................ 4 IV. Relevant international standards ............................................................................... 5 A. Transparency as a principle of democratic law-making .............................................. 5 B. The principle of legality .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]