The Juridical power in selected postyugoslave states – Slovenia and Croatia

The government in the Republic of Slovenia is organized on the principle of separation of powers into legislative, executive and judicial branches. Judicial power is exercised by the courts. The judiciary is autonomous and independent. The courts administer justice according to the Constitution and law, as well as according to international agreements and treaties in force. Judges and lay assessors participate in the administration of justice in conformity with the law. In the Republic of Slovenia the administration of justice is carried out by 44 district courts, 11 regional courts, 4 higher courts: labour courts and social court, Higher Labour and Social Court, the Administrative Court of the Republic of Slovenia and the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia. In addition to courts with general jurisdiction, there are 4 labour courts and 1 social court. There are responsible for ruling on individual and collective labour-related disputes and on social disputes. For second-degree ruling the Higher Labour and Social Court is responsible.

The conduct of free elections depends to a large extent on the efficient functioning of electoral bodies. The doctrine distinguishes a number of models of functioning of election administration bodies. The standards of functioning of electoral bodies at the European level are defined by the standards of the Venice Commission, and in particular the Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters. In Poland, after World War II, the adopted model of election administration did not meet democratic standards. It was only after 1990 that the State Election Commission was established as a permanent body consisting exclusively of judges of the Supreme Court, Constitutional Tribunal and Supreme Administrative Court. This concept was abandoned in an atmosphere of massive criticism of the judiciary. Although the model adopted now does not directly violate international standards, it seems to be a step backwards from the regulations existing after 1990.

Legal status of judges in Finland. Theoretical and legal analysis

The legal status of judges, based on ensuring their autonomic and independent functioning, is a fundamental attribute of the system of justice, a prerequisite and a guarantee of the implementation of the principle of a democratic legal state. It is not different in the Finnish constitutional system. The aim of this study is to analyze the legal status of judges in Finland. The subject of the analysis covers the examination of the qualifications required from candidates for the post of a judge, the procedures for their appointment and dismissal, and the attributes of the realization of their autonomic and independent status. The legal analysis has been conducted on the grounds of the provisions of the Basic Law of 1999 regarding the status of judges and the provisions of the relevant laws on courts and the appointment of judges. This study allowed to conclude that the above guarantees enable the objective and impartial functioning of the judiciary in Finland in accordance with the principle of a democratic state ruled by law, as in terms of adjudication courts are fully autonomic and independent and are not subject to state control, while court judgments are the last resort guaranteeing parties respect for their rights in relations with the state.

In Western legal traditions, democracy is inseparable from the rule of law, which presupposes the state to establish an effective and transparent judicial system that guarantees human rights and freedoms. The involvement of Lay Participation in the administration of justice (lay judges (mixed tribunal) or justices of the peace (magistrates) is one of the instruments for achieving this objective. The constitutions of the fourteen EU Member States, including Poland, oblige some Lay Participation in the administration of justice. However, the formulations of the norms in the constitutions, establishing Lay Participation in the administration of justice, differ. Based on the analysis of the Polish case, the article focuses on the question whether it would be sufficient to establish a relevant general provision in the Constitution, leaving the specification (form and extent of Lay Participation) to the legislator. The case of Poland has shown that the legislator can, without amending the Constitution, introduce other forms of Lay Participation (such as justices of the peace) or/and extend the extent of Lay Participation to judicial disciplinary cases when they are elected by the legislature; however, this poses a threat to the rule of law in Poland. Therefore, the article aims at discussing the impact of the Polish constitutional regulation of the Lay Participation on the violation of the rule of law.

The Procedure of Access to the Office of Judge of the Peace in the Presidential Draft Law on Courts of Peace and the Principle of Judicial Independence

On November 4, 2021, the Marshal of the Sejm received draft laws presented by the President of the Republic of Poland: the draft law on the courts of the peace and the draft law – provisions introducing the law on the courts of the peace. The changes proposed in the drafts assume the creation of justices of the peace. The courts of the peace are going to have the status of common courts. Pursuant to the draft, justices of the peace are to be elected in general elections and then appointed by the President at the request of the National Council of the Judiciary. The author of the study tries to answer the question about the status of justices of the peace, primarily in the aspect of the planned access to the office of justice of the peace, with particular emphasis on the conditions and procedure of selection.