By: Karyn Kenny, Consultant, World Bank*

I.       Introduction

Recognizing the important role of justice sector reform and modernization, Serbia has been seeking to strengthen its judicial and prosecutorial services. A key component within Serbia’s justice sector reform strategy is the goal of strengthening the transparency, accountability and effectiveness of Serbia’s prosecution service, as represented by the Republic Public Prosecution Office (RPPO). The ability of the RPPO to function with integrity and engender public confidence is a critical component to promoting the rule of law in Serbia. This article provides a brief summary of the RPPO, explores recent legislative initiatives which will expand the role and responsibilities of Serbian prosecutors and highlights some of the challenges raised by exploring these legislative initiatives.

II. The RPPO

The RPPO is organized into three hierarchical tiers. The Republic Public Prosecutor’s Office is the highest prosecutorial office in Serbia. The chief officer, the Republic Public Prosecutor, is proposed by the government upon the recommendation of a specialized committee of the National Assembly.  The Higher (formerly district) Prosecutor’s Offices have jurisdiction over cases where the offense carries a penalty of ten or more years’ imprisonment and cases involving specifically enumerated offenses, such as juvenile crimes. The Basic (formally municipal) Prosecutor’s Offices handle cases where the offense carries a penalty of up to ten years’ imprisonment. The RPPO also has specialized offices which handle organized crime and war crimes cases.

The heavy case load of Serbian prosecutors reflects their geographical location on the major trade corridor known as the "Balkan route." An analysis of the case load reveals the challenges faced by the RPPO in combating trafficking in persons, official corruption, organized crime, money laundering, and other criminal activities. In 2004, 105,389 criminal cases were received by the RPPO.  By 2006, that number had almost doubled to 173,838 cases.[i]

III. Judicial Reform Package

To better equip the RPPO to respond to these challenges, and in support of further reform, the Serbian National Assembly passed a judicial reform package in 2008.  Cumulatively, these laws act to significantly expand the RPPO’s role and responsibilities. In addition to these legislative initiatives, recent amendments to the Serbian Criminal Procedure Code have also resulted in fundamental changes in the RPPO function.  Under the Code amendments, prosecutors will be taking on a number of new investigative and trial responsibilities. Duties previously within the judges’ domain, such as leading pre-trial investigative techniques and plea bargaining, will come under the prosecutor domain.

Specifically, within the scope of the judicial reform legislation, a number of laws have significant impact on the functioning of the RPPO.  First, the Law on Public Prosecution (LOPP) implements key changes in the administration of the RPPO. The LOPP regulates the status of the RPPO as an independent state body, governs its organization and jurisdiction, establishes requirements and procedures for the election and termination of the public and deputy prosecutors, defines their rights and duties, the scope of performance evaluation of their work, their promotion and disciplinary accountability, and the performance of judicial administration tasks, including the provisions of funds for the RPPO.[ii]  

Second, the Law on State Prosecutorial Council (LSPC) created the Special Prosecution Council (SPC). The SPC mandate is to ensure the autonomy of prosecutors.  Among other duties, it is responsible for compiling candidate lists for the election of the Republic Public Prosecutor and public prosecutors and presents the list to the government for consideration.   It also nominates deputy public prosecutors to the National Assembly, determines issues of appointment and termination, provides proposals on the volume and structure of the RPPO budget, and monitors the spending thereof.  The SPC is comprised of eleven compensated members who each serve a five year term.  SPC members include the Republican Public Prosecutor (serving as President), the Minister competent for the judiciary, and the Chairperson of the competent committee of the National Assembly.  The remaining members, elected by the National Assembly, consist of six public prosecutors or deputy public prosecutors with permanent tenure, one law professor and one barrister with a minimum of 15 years experience.  Nominees for the SPC were submitted to the Ministry of Justice in January 2009.  

Third, the Law on the Seats and Territorial Jurisdiction of Courts and Public Prosecutors Offices (LSTJ) redefines the nomenclature and territorial jurisdictions of courts and prosecution offices. Specifically, the official title of the RPPO will remain the same, but the District Prosecution Offices will be renamed “Higher” prosecution offices (HPO) and the Municipal Prosecution Offices will be called “Basic” prosecutor offices (BPO). The law also addresses the rationalization of the RPPO and reduces the District offices to 26, and the Municipal offices to 34. According to the law, the SPC will decide on the staffing assignments for the public prosecutor's office staff.

Fourth, the Law on Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds of a Crime (LSCPC) came into effect in March 2009. The law governs the requirements, procedures and the authorities responsible for tracing, seizing, confiscating and managing the proceeds from crime.  It presents a powerful tool for the prosecution of organized crime and corruption cases. Article 9 of the law establishes the position of the “Directorate for Management of Seized and Confiscated Assets” as a body within the MOJ to carry out tasks related to forfeiture, including storage and management of the seized items and conducting professional assessments of the items. Questions remain regarding the sufficiency of institutional capacity and financial resource availability to empower the new Directorate. 

IV.  Challenges Ahead for the RPPO

Viewed in their totality, these laws have a strong influence on the functionality of the RPPO, despite the fact that they encompass just a limited view of the overall impact of the justice reform package. Importantly, these laws impact both issues of governance (through the LOPP, SPC, and LSTJ) and the expansion of the authority of Serbian prosecutors to use asset forfeiture as an effective tool to combat money laundering and organized crime.  Thus, while improving functionality, the passage of these laws also triggers related challenges.  One key challenge is that a number of the laws contained within the judicial reform package are accompanied by tight timelines.  Dealing with strict deadlines is a challenge faced by prosecution services across the globe, even where resources are far more available than in Serbia.  In Serbia in particular, the availability of resources to meet these new requirements will pose a particular challenge, especially as the global financial crisis continues to deplete national budgets.

---

[i] Source: European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice, “Efficiency and Quality of justice,” Edition 2008.
[ii] Package of Judicial Laws available at http://www.mpravde.gov.rs/en/, accessed on November 4, 2009.