Govoreći o sednici Skupštine na čijem je dnevnom redu izmena takozvanih "Mrdićevih zakona", Aleksandar Ivanović (NPS) rekao je za N1 da je vlast "dobila packu, te sada ispravlja greške". Goran Petrović (SSP) naveo je da se "pred našim očima dešava slom pravnog sistema", kao i da je glavni predlagač predsednik Srbije Aleksandar Vučić. "On je taj koji je osmislio kako ovo treba da izgleda. Možda ne pravno, jer mislim da nije toliko dobar pravnik, ali je angažovao Ministarstvo koje je osmislilo ove zakone", kazao je Petrović.
Oglas
Govoreći o današnjoj skupštinskoj raspravi, Aleksandar Ivanović je rekao da je "ono što se danas dešava - ustaljena praksa".
N1/Marina Pupavac
"Važno je objasniti način zakazivanja sednice - po hitnom postupku, stavljanje 32 tačke na dnevni red, a onda u objedinjenjenoj proceduri raspravljati o sve 32 tačke tako važne teme je ništa drugo neko suziti manevarski prostor opozicionim poslanicama da iskoriste nacionalnu frekvekciju i da se obrate biračima", rekao je.
Ivanović je podsetio da su na dnevnom redu bili "Mrdićevi zakoni" - koji su se ponovo vratili u Skupštinu.
"Dobili su packu, sada ispravljaju greške. Na sve ono što smo ukazivali u skupštinskoj proceduri je prožeto tim izveštajem Venecijanske komisije , koja na prvom mestu izražava žaljenje i zabrinutost zbog procedure kako je zakon donet. Onda im upućuju devet nekih primedbi, jer način na koji je donet i zakonska rešenja - po njihovom mišljenju, u značajnoj meri narušava nezavisnost i samostalnost javnog tužilaštva", naveo je.
Dodao je da, oni (vlast, prim.N1) nakon stava i primedbi Venecijanske komisije - predstavljaju (izmene, prim.N1) kao "unapređenje modela".
"Oni se igraju terminološki, imaju sav medijski prostor u Srbiji da 14 godina zaluđuju građane", kazao je.
"Greške u prevodu - kod ovakvih stvari nemoguće"
Govoreći o razlikama u tekstu zakona koji je upućen Venecijanskoj komisiji i onoj koji je ušao u skupštinsku proceduru, na šta je ukazao predsednik Sindikata sudske vlasti , Petrović navodi da koliko je razumeo ministra (pravde, prim. N1), "radi se o nekim greškama u prevodu", što kako ističe, "kod ovakvih stvari - nije moguće".
N1/Marina Pupavac
"Ministar pravde Nenad Vujić je istakao da je jedina razlika između tekstova pred narodnim poslanicima i onoga što je bilo pred Venecijanskom komisijom u tome što je tekst u Skupštini na srpskom jeziku. Podsetio je da na sajtu Venecijanske komisije postoje tekstovi nacrta zakona na engleskom jeziku, koji je pored francuskog jezika, zvanični jezik te komisije", navodi se u saopštenju Ministarstva pravde.
"Zašto su ti zakoni ključna stvar u ovom trenutku - ključni su jer se pred našim očima dešava slom pravnog sistema jedne zemlje. Pitanja su veoma važna jer se ovim prvobitnim zakonima koji su usvojeni zapravo pokušao instucionalizovati uticaj na pravosuđe od strane izvršne vlasti", rekao je.
Petrović je kazao da "onog trenutka kada je organizovana kriminalna grupa na vlasti shvatila da postoje tužioci i sudije koji su spremni da progone ministre i utvrde krivičnu odgovornost ministara - shvatili su da je vrag odneo šalu i da se nešto hitno mora uraditi da bi se tužilaštvo, kako je formalni predlagač Mrdić rekao, vratilo u okrilje države".
"Glavni predlagač je ovde Aleksandar Vučić. On je taj koji je osmislio kako ovo treba da izgleda. Možda ne pravno, jer mislim da nije toliko dobar pravnik, ali je angažovao Ministarstvo koje je osmislilo ove zakone. Oni nose njegov lični pečat", istakao je.
Petrović je rekao da se ovim izmenama "pokušalo zamagliti stanje".
"Kako je ministar na početku rekao - to fino brušenje i podešavanje zakona, ono treba da dovede do toga da se otvori prostor za dalji uticaj na tužioce", istakao je.
Podsećamo, aktuelna vlast je krajem januara donela novi set pravosudnih zakona, odnosno paket od pet izmena i dopuna, nazvanog po predlagaču Uglješi Mrdiću, poslaniku vladajuće Srpske napredne stranke (SNS) u Skupštini Srbije.
Izmene i dopune obuhvatale su: Zakon o Visokom savetu tužilaštva, Zakon o sedištima i područjima sudova i javnih tužilaštava, Zakon o organizaciji i nadležnosti državnih organa za borbu protiv visokotehnološkog kriminala, Zakon o javnom tužilaštvu i Zakon o sudijama.
Venecijanska komisija objavila je naknadno mišljenje na hitno mišljenje o "Mrdićevim zakonima" gde navodi da je Srbija sprovela sedam od devet preporuka, ali da dve ključne i dalje ostaju nerešene.
Teme
Read the full article at N1 Srbija →📄Source document: Venice Commission→8 reports
N1 SrbijaIndependentCenter2 days agoThe article discusses ongoing controversies surrounding the so-called 'Mrdić laws,' proposed by Uglješa Mrdić and adopted by the ruling majority in the National Assembly. These laws have undergone revisions and are now under review by the Venice Commission, which has indicated key recommendations remain unresolved. Experts and the opposition claim discrepancies between the versions of the laws sent to the Venice Commission and those presented to parliament. They argue that the version submitted to the commission is less restrictive than what was ultimately passed, raising concerns about the ad
Bias read (Center): The article presents differing viewpoints without overtly favoring any side. It highlights concerns raised by experts and the opposition while also noting the government's position through quotes and facts. The framing remains balanced, avoiding loaded language or one-sided sourcing.
N1 SrbijaIndependentLeft4 days ago "They get the bug and correct the mistakes, the main proponent is Vučić": Opposition to the amended "Mrdic laws"The article discusses the opposition's reaction to changes made to the so-called 'Mrdić laws' during a session of the Serbian Parliament. Opposition members such as Aleksandar Ivanović (NPS) and Goran Petrović (SSP) criticize the government for having received 'a pack' and now correcting mistakes. They argue that the legal system is under strain and that President Aleksandar Vučić is the main proposer of these changes. The discussion also touches on the procedural aspects of the parliamentary session, including the scheduling of the meeting and the handling of multiple agenda items.
Bias read (Left): The article presents the opposition's perspective with critical language toward the government and President Vučić, suggesting a left-leaning framing by emphasizing concerns over the legal system and procedural irregularities. The tone implies skepticism towards the executive branch and highlights a
Official sources cited
- government Venecijanska komisija
N1 SrbijaIndependentCenter4 days ago Tomorrow the extraordinary session of the VST, one of the points and the referral of the prosecutors to the TOKAn extraordinary meeting of the High Council of Prosecutors (VST) has been scheduled for tomorrow, with one of the agenda items being the temporary assignment of public prosecutors to the Public Prosecutor's Office for Organized Crime (TOK). This follows a recent opinion by the Venice Commission, which highlighted issues with the 'Mrdić laws' regarding the assignment of prosecutors. Under these laws, four prosecutors remained outside TOK in March. Following the first Venice Commission opinion in May, five prosecutors were assigned to TOK, but two of them—Prosecutor Irena Bjeloš and Prosecutor
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual information without overtly biased language or selective sourcing. It reports on legal procedures and decisions made by the High Council of Prosecutors, referencing the Venice Commission’s opinions and specific names of prosecutors involved. The tone remains neutral, and
Official sources cited
- government Venice Commission
N1 SrbijaIndependentCenter4 days ago The Ministry denies that there are differences in the texts of the "Mordic Laws" for the Venice Commission and the AssemblyThe Ministry of Justice has denied claims that there are differences between the texts of the so-called 'Mrdić laws' sent to the Venice Commission and those presented to the National Assembly. The ministry strongly rejects these allegations, calling them false and misleading. It states that the only difference is that the text in the Assembly is in Serbian, while the version provided to the Venice Commission includes an English translation, which is also used by the commission alongside French. The ministry emphasizes that Serbia is a serious country committed to improving its legal framework.
Bias read (Center): The article reports on the Ministry of Justice's denial of discrepancies in legal documents without taking a stance or using biased language. It presents the ministry's position neutrally and does not favor any particular side.
Official sources cited
- government Ministry of Justice Statement
N1 SrbijaIndependentCenter4 days ago Prosecutor Milovanović: Bjelos and Barac to return to the TK and correct the mistake - why would I be a stumbling block to the EU's journey to SerbiaProsecutor Predrag Milovanović has stated that prosecutors Irena Bjeloš and Aleksandar Barac should return to the Office of the Prosecutor (TOK) to correct an error related to Serbia's European Union path. He expressed this during a meeting with the Supreme Council of Prosecutors (VST), where four prosecutors were previously not assigned to TOK. The Venice Commission later noted that one key issue with the Mrdić laws was that not all prosecutors were assigned to TOK. Milovanović emphasized that returning Bjeloš and Barac would address a mistake in the legal resolution process.
Bias read (Center): The article presents statements from multiple officials and references external analyses (Venice Commission). It does not exhibit overtly biased language, one-sided sourcing, or omission of context. The framing remains neutral, focusing on procedural discussions within the judicial system without明显的
Official sources cited
- government Venice Commission statement
- government Predrag Milovanović's comments
N1 SrbijaIndependentLeft5 days ago President of the Judicial Union: The text of the law addressed to the Venice Commission differs from the text in the AssemblyThe president of the Judicial Authority Union, Nemanja Đurić, stated that the proposed amendments to the so-called 'Mrdić laws,' sent to the National Assembly today, only partially address existing issues. He warned that the changes entering the parliamentary procedure did not receive the necessary support from the High Council of Prosecutors. According to Đurić, seven out of eleven members voted in favor of the proposed laws, while at least eight were needed for a majority. He noted that the text of the law sent to the Venice Commission differs from the version entering the parliamentary流程, a
Bias read (Left): The article presents criticism of legal reforms and highlights concerns raised by the Judicial Authority Union regarding the lack of consensus and potential issues with the proposed laws. The framing emphasizes the shortcomings of the reforms and warns of possible international scandals, which align
N1 SrbijaIndependentCenter6 days ago Government adopts amendments to judiciary lawsThe Serbian government held an extraordinary session to adopt several bills amending judiciary laws, including the Law on Judges, the Law on the Public Prosecutor’s Office, and others related to high-tech crime and court organization. The changes have drawn criticism from experts and the opposition. The government claims the Venice Commission provided a positive opinion on the proposed laws.
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual information without overtly biased language or selective sourcing. It mentions both the government's actions and the criticism from experts and the opposition, indicating a balanced approach. There is no clear emphasis on one side over another.
N1 SrbijaIndependentCenter6 days ago News: Guest Jelena JerinićThe article announces an episode of the 'Iza vesti' program featuring guest Jelena Jerinić, a law professor, member of the Green-Labor Front parliamentary faction, and member of the Assembly Committee on Justice. The discussion will focus on the opinion of the Venice Commission regarding the so-called 'Mrdić laws' and whether this represents a legal or political defeat for the current government.
Bias read (Center): The article provides a neutral announcement of a planned discussion without expressing any overt ideological stance. It mentions the guest's affiliation with the Green-Labor Front but does not frame the content of the discussion as biased. No explicit slant is evident in the language or emphasis.
Serbia