Judicial Academy draft law would make one institution the sole gate to judicial careers

On 17 July 2026 the Government of the Republic of Serbia submitted to the National Assembly a draft Law on the Judicial Academy.

The explanatory note to the draft states that the new Law on the Judicial Academy is the missing part of the renewed legal framework in the field of the judiciary: the judicial laws give closer effect to the constitutional amendments and regulate the election of holders of judicial office, their status, position and competences - with professional competence and ability serving as the criterion for election, advancement and the quality of work in the judiciary.

The 2022 constitutional amendments concerned the judiciary alone and were adopted in order to strengthen the independence of the judiciary and the autonomy of the public prosecution. As stated, their adoption was motivated by political and strategic reasons (alignment with the Stabilisation and Association Agreement and the EU Negotiating Framework for the Republic of Serbia) as well as by constitutional-law reasons - the need to remove the shortcomings identified in the provisions governing the courts and the prosecution. The key changes concerned the manner of electing judges and public prosecutors (transferred from the National Assembly to the judicial councils), the abolition of the three-year probationary term for judges, changes to the organisation, composition and competences of judicial bodies, the redefinition of the constitutional position of the highest public prosecution (through the introduction of the Supreme Public Prosecution) and certain terminological alignments.

The draft law on the training of holders of judicial office within the Judicial Academy was prepared during the second half of 2024 and drew extensive criticism from the legal profession over an insufficiently inclusive drafting process and shortcomings in the proposed solutions. The text of the current draft is the result of intensive cooperation between the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe and the competent authorities of Serbia. The Commission's first opinion was requested in September 2024 and published in December of the same year, following online consultations. The Commission adopted its next opinion in June 2026, after a joint examination of the amendments.

The Commission adopted its latest, urgent opinion on 16 July 2026. Together with the text of the draft, the domestic authorities also submitted accompanying amendments to the Law on Judges and the Law on Public Prosecution, which entered parliamentary procedure at the same time.

The draft retains the basic concept of training for holders of judicial office at the Judicial Academy (hereinafter: the Academy) - the acquisition and refinement of practical and theoretical knowledge and skills - and adapts it to the constitutional changes made since 2022. At the same time, in order to harmonise the legal framework, the proposed amendments to the Law on Judges and the Law on Public Prosecution provide that the competence and ability of a candidate for a first appointment to judicial and prosecutorial office are established by a certificate of completed training at the Academy.

The legal profession, however, points to the risk that entrusting the assessment of candidates' competence and ability to this institution - which is not a constitutional category Unlike the High Judicial Council and the High Prosecutorial Council, the Academy is not established by the Constitution; vesting it with the power to certify fitness for judicial office is what raises the constitutional concern. and whose work has been the subject of numerous debates and controversies - bears on the constitutional role of the HJC and the HPC. It is also recalled that similar statutory solutions were reviewed by the Constitutional Court in 2014 and declared incompatible with the Constitution. The reference is to earlier provisions that tied a first election to judicial office to completed Academy training; the Constitutional Court found them unconstitutional in 2014.

The introductory provisions of the draft state that the purpose of the Academy is to contribute to the exercise of judicial functions by providing theoretical and practical training, while the Academy is designated an indirect budget beneficiary of the Ministry of Justice. The draft regulates in more detail the Academy's relationship with the High Judicial Council (HJC) and the High Prosecutorial Council (HPC). These bodies oversee the Academy's work, exercise professional supervision and evaluate the quality of work of its expert bodies, mentors and lecturers, in a manner that does not jeopardise the Academy's institutional autonomy. The HJC and the HPC may issue recommendations for improving the Academy's work in their reports, and the Academy is obliged to submit an annual report to them. Under the draft, the Academy retains all activities envisaged by the law in force, with its competences extended to conducting professional development programmes for lawyers and lawyers' associates. As regards the Academy's resources and working conditions, the explicitly listed revenues from publishing and from project implementation are deleted from the provision.

The draft introduces certain institutional and organisational changes to the Academy's three bodies.

The Managing Board is proposed to consist of 11 members (instead of the current 9): five appointed by the HJC (two of them on the proposal of judges' associations), four from the HPC (one on the proposal of prosecutors' associations), one law-faculty professor or scholar (appointed by the Government) and one Academy employee, also appointed by the Government. The members' term is extended from four to five years, with the possibility of reappointment abolished. A deputy chair of the Managing Board is introduced, elected from among judges and prosecutors. Its new competences include proposing the members of the Commission for the Entrance Examination for preliminary training, the Appeals Commission and the Commission for the Final Examination of preliminary training. At the same time, the inability to perform the function for a period longer than six months is removed from the grounds for termination of a Managing Board member's mandate.

The Director's term is limited so that the same person may be elected no more than twice, each term lasting five years. The requirement of higher education is further specified (higher education in law of at least 240 ECTS or lasting at least four years).

The number of members of the Programme Council is increased from 15 to 17, so that 7 members will be judges (one a member of the HJC), 5 public prosecutors (one a member of the HPC), one judicial and one prosecutorial assistant, one from among preliminary-training users, and two state secretaries - on the proposal of the minister of finance and the minister of justice. Members are elected for a five-year term. There is also an obligation to ensure balanced gender representation in electing the members of the Managing Board and the Programme Council.

In place of the current initial training - intended for future judges of misdemeanour and basic courts and for public prosecutors in basic public prosecution offices - preliminary training is introduced, intended for all candidates for judges and public prosecutors. It begins with an entrance examination, following a public competition for the admission of users. The admission conditions remain unchanged - a candidate must have passed the bar exam The pravosudni ispit - the state professional examination in law that qualifies a candidate for judicial, prosecutorial and related legal work. , meet the general conditions for work in state bodies, and pass the Academy's entrance examination. The draft abandons the model in which the number of initial-training users is set in advance; instead, this number is determined by the HJC and the HPC on the basis of an assessment of the number of vacant judicial and prosecutorial positions.

The entrance examination is scored separately for the written and oral parts, each carrying up to 100 points. The draft establishes a special appeals commission of five members, to which a candidate may lodge an appeal within 24 hours of the examination. Candidates on the ranking list are divided into those to be funded from the budget and those who will bear the cost of the training themselves. The examination commission submits a final report to the HJC and the HPC before the ranking list is set.

One of the most significant innovations is that the duration of preliminary training varies with the candidate's work experience. It lasts 24 months for users who, after passing the bar exam, have up to two years of work experience; 12 months for those with more than two years; 6 months for those with four years; and 3 months for those with at least six years of experience.

After each part of the preliminary training, a mentor (a judge or prosecutor) assesses the trainee's work, and this assessment may be challenged before the Commission for Preliminary Training. For the duration of the training the user is employed at the Academy; where the training lasts 12 months or less, the user's employment at their primary institution is suspended. The draft introduces a distinction between the duration of employment and the duration of training - users on the 24-month training are employed for 30 months, while in the other cases the training and the employment last the same.

On completion of the preliminary training, a final examination is taken before the members of the Commission for the Final Examination, testing practical knowledge and ability to perform the functions. After successfully completing the stages of training, the user receives a certificate of completed training, which is the basis for employment in a court or public prosecution office as an assistant, or for expert work in the HJC and the HPC. The inclusion of lawyers employed in state bodies is specifically encouraged: during their employment at the Academy, users whose employment is suspended are entitled to a salary equal to the earnings they had in the public authority, if that is more favourable to them.

Under the draft (as under the law in force), continuous training for judges and prosecutors may be compulsory or voluntary. The introductory provision of the section emphasises, however, that judges and public prosecutors have both the right and the duty of professional development. A distinction is further drawn between compulsory continuous training, a special programme of compulsory continuous training and an annual programme of compulsory continuous training. Compulsory continuous training may be prescribed by a decision of the HJC or the HPC. The following provisions regulate the training of assistants in judicial bodies, trainees, and judicial and prosecutorial staff. The provision requiring judicial and prosecutorial trainees to pass the Academy's entrance examination in order to be admitted to their traineeship is retained, and this obligation is extended to volunteers in courts and prosecution offices.

Under the draft (as under the law in force), continuous training for judges and prosecutors may be compulsory or voluntary. The introductory provision of the section emphasises, however, that judges and public prosecutors have both the right and the duty of professional development. A distinction is further drawn between compulsory continuous training, a special programme of compulsory continuous training and an annual programme of compulsory continuous training. Compulsory continuous training may be prescribed by a decision of the HJC or the HPC. The following provisions regulate the training of assistants in judicial bodies, trainees, and judicial and prosecutorial staff. The provision requiring judicial and prosecutorial trainees to pass the Academy's entrance examination in order to be admitted to their traineeship is retained, and this obligation is extended to volunteers in courts and prosecution offices.

The proposed solutions significantly change a lawyer's path to a first judicial or prosecutorial office. Unlike the system in force, in which initial training is not envisaged for all future holders of judicial office, under the draft practically every candidate for a future judge or prosecutor will have to complete preliminary training at the Judicial Academy and obtain a certificate of its successful completion - and this after finishing law school, passing the bar exam and acquiring a certain amount of work experience. A lawyer who meets the general conditions for appointment to judicial office but has not completed preliminary training at the Academy will not hold the certificate proving fitness for a first appointment as a judge or public prosecutor - an appointment made by the judicial councils (the HJC and the HPC).

A lawyer who has finished law school, passed the bar exam and has less than two years of work experience applies to the public competition for preliminary training at the Academy. After passing the entrance examination and the publication of the ranking list, they enrol in 24 months of preliminary training, during which they work with a mentor, undergo theoretical and practical training and take the final examination (during which they are employed at the Academy for 30 months and receive a salary of 70% of a basic-court judge's salary). Once the certificate is obtained, the lawyer may take up fixed-term employment of up to two years with the HJC or the HPC, as a judicial or prosecutorial assistant, or in expert work in the HJC or the HPC. Completing the training also confers the right to be elected, in the future, as a judge or prosecutor for the first time. At the same time, admission to the Academy becomes a condition for a traineeship even for volunteer trainees (lawyers who have recently earned their degree and wish to work in a court or prosecution office without pay).

Lawyers who, after passing the bar exam, have been employed for more than six years (associates or advisers in judicial bodies, or lawyers elsewhere) must also complete preliminary training at the Academy. Because of their prior experience, their training is shorter (3, 6 or 12 months), and their employment is suspended for that time. Trainees who are (or were) employed in a public authority are entitled to a salary equal to the one they earned there. After the final examination and the certificate, they may take up a post as a judicial or prosecutorial assistant (or in the HJC and the HPC), and on completing the training they too acquire the right to be elected, for the first time, as a judge or prosecutor.

Judges and public prosecutors elected to office before this law enters into force will not be obliged to complete preliminary training. They may, however, be obliged to develop their skills at the Academy in another way. By a decision of the HJC or the HPC, compulsory continuous training may be prescribed for particular categories of judges and public prosecutors, and a special programme may additionally be provided to remedy shortcomings in the work of a judge or prosecutor identified during the evaluation of their work. These programmes are drawn up by the Academy's Programme Council and submitted to the judicial councils.

The urgent follow-up opinion of 16 July 2026 was produced after a series of online meetings with various actors, in which issues relevant to assessing the text of the law were considered. The aim of the opinion was to assess the extent to which the current text is aligned with the Commission's earlier recommendations. The Commission noted in particular that the future Law on the Academy, together with the amendments to the Law on Judges and the Law on Public Prosecution, sustains the implementation of the concept of the Academy as the sole entry path into the judicial professions - which corresponds to Option No. 2 In 2024 the Venice Commission set out several models for entry into the judiciary; Option 2 was making the Academy the single mandatory route. , assessed by the Commission in 2024 as preferable.

The Venice Commission's key recommendations on the 2024 draft were the following: clarifying the competences of the HJC and the HPC in relation to the Academy - oversight of the Academy's work and professional supervision, review of the report on the entrance examination and of the ranking list, and discretionary powers when considering candidates who have completed initial training; removing the ex officio membership of the minister of justice on the Academy's Managing Board; equality between budget-funded and self-funded users; ensuring gender-balanced representation in the Academy's bodies; and conducting a transparent, inclusive and open process of drafting the text of the law. It was noted that these recommendations had been implemented.

In the conclusion of the opinion, the Commission commended the efforts of the Ministry of Justice to revise the draft law and welcomed the implementation of the concept of the Academy as the sole entry path into the judicial professions through the amendments to the Law on Judges and the Law on Public Prosecution. However, it pointed in particular to the need for the government-appointed members of the Managing Board not to be representatives of the Ministry of Justice or persons delegated by that ministry, and for the provision on the gender-balanced composition of the Academy's bodies to be applied consistently in practice. The need for an inclusive legislative process ensuring the full participation of all relevant actors, including civil society organisations, was reiterated.

It is notable that the Commission observed that the legislative process concerning the Law on the Academy was, at the time the opinion was drafted, in its early stages, that the public debate had been held in October 2024, and that the recommendation to conduct a transparent and inclusive process with broad participation applies also to the coming phases of the process. Despite this, the draft Law on the Academy entered parliamentary procedure the very next day after the adoption of this opinion.

The Academy's basic function remains unchanged, and the training system and the position of users build on the constitutional framework, somewhat broadening the powers of the HJC and the HPC. The most significant changes concern the introduction of preliminary training, its variable duration, a new model of engaging users, and the establishment of compulsory forms of training for judges and prosecutors.

Viewed as a whole, the proposed solutions point to a further strengthening of the concept of professional development through the Academy, with completed training becoming the key condition for access to judicial and prosecutorial office. Despite the Venice Commission's recommendations having been built into the text of the draft, there remains a risk of creating a kind of monopoly of a single institution over access to the judicial professions. Attention is drawn in particular to the absence of an adequate public-debate procedure on the proposed changes.