University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia
University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia
University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia
Stalnost sudačke i državnoodvjetničke funkcije prema međunarodnim
standardima predstavlja osnovnu garanciju sudbene i državnoodvjetničke
nezavisnosti. Analizom načela sadržanih u pozitivnim propisima, prvenstveno
u Ustavu RH, utvrđeno je da je sucima i državnim odvjetnicima kao nositeljima
pravosudne funkcije pružen visok stupanj zaštite u smislu garancije stalnosti
njihove funkcije. Međutim, kako nijedan standard ne možemo analizirati
izolirano, tako ni stalnost sudačke odnosno državnoodvjetničke funkcije, ne
može biti promatrana kao apsolutna kategorija. Odredbama Zakona o sudovima
je propisana mogućnost privremenog upućivanja sudaca, na njihov zahtjev, na
rad u druga tijela državne vlasti, a identično je za državne odvjetnike propisano
Zakonom o državnom odvjetništvu, ali samo kao izuzetak od opće prihvaćenog
pravila stalnosti funkcije na koju su imenovani. Autori preispituju razloge za
imenovanja sudaca odnosno državnih odvjetnika na privremene pozicije u
Ministarstvu pravosuđa imajući u vidu višeslojnost ovog problema i činjenicu
da odgovor na ovo pitanje nije jednoznačno određen. Štoviše, s obzirom
na raznorodnost pravnih sistema nacionalnih država, kao i na raznorodnost
političkih i pravnih vrijednosti, izgradnja prihvatljivog koncepta vladavine
prava, pa i u kontekstu predmetne problematike, ostaje izazov.
The permanence of judicial and state attorney functions according to
international standards represents the basic guarantee of judicial and state
attorney independence. An analysis of the principles contained in the positive
regulations, primarily in the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia, established
that judges and state attorneys as holders of judicial functions are provided with
a high degree of protection in terms of guaranteeing the permanence of their
functions. However, as we cannot analyse any standard in isolation, neither can
the permanence of the judge or state attorney function be viewed as an absolute
category. The provisions of the Law on Courts prescribe the possibility of
temporarily assigning judges, at their request, to work in other state authorities,
and the same is prescribed for state attorneys in the Law on State Attorneys,
but only as an exception to the generally accepted rule of permanence of the
function to which they are appointed. The authors examine the reasons for
the appointment of judges and state attorneys to temporary positions in the
Ministry of Justice, bearing in mind the multifaceted nature of this problem
and the fact that the answer to this question is not unambiguously determined.
Moreover, considering the diversity of legal systems of nation states, as well as
the diversity of political and legal values, building an acceptable concept of the
rule of law, even in the context of the issue in question, remains a challenge.
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.