Last year the Europe and world were facing with COVID-19 outbreak that put at the risk lives of the people and capability of healthcare systems to provide their services. To prevent spread of the COVID-19 governments have imposed restrictive measures, while some of them declared state of emergency. The response to the pandemic influenced on the functioning of the criminal justice system and daily operation of courts, but also on the substantive criminal law since some states are applying criminal law to violation of restrictive measures or to criminalizing disinformation on COVID-19 outbreak. Outbreak of COVID-19 revealed new trends in criminal law like accelerated introduction of new crimes during pandemic, extremely flexible interpretation and rapid changes of criminal laws, which tend to be threat for legal stability and human rights protection. In addition, populist governments tend to use that new trend as a tool in suppression of political dissidents. COVID-19 pandemic has posed unprecedent challenges to the functioning of judiciaries. Courts and prosecution services were working with limited capacities to ensure social distancing. Some countries introduced ICT tools and fast-track procedures to organize hearings, which raised question of procedural rights and protection of rights of defendant. In the article authors assessed whether derogation of fair trial rights was in the line with standards of international human rights law and if introduction of state of emergency and restrictions were proportionate, time limited and needed and whether they changed understanding of the fundamental rights protection, especially right to a fair trial. Furthermore, authors explore whether COVID 19 changed perception of criminal law and legal certainty. Authors assessed how restrictions in the organization of judiciary work influenced on human rights protection and citizens trust in judiciary. Consequently, authors assesses whether some of introduces changes, especially use of ICT tools made permanent changes in operation of courts and understanding of access to justice. Finally, authors are assessing whether these changes tend to erode judiciaries or put into the risk access to justice in the EU members states and candidate countries or whether they jeopardized EU principle of mutual trust.

Artificial intelligence (AI), as an extension of the digital transformation of society, is becoming an integral part of criminal justice. The paper analyzes the use of AI in criminal law, as well as the risks that its use poses for criminal law. AI is not only a simple tool of criminal justice but also a path to the transformation of criminal law. The first part of the paper analyze the concept of AI and its influence in the world of the Internet of Things (IoT) in the way of detection of criminal acts, prevention and assessment of the degree of risk of recidivism. As AI is prone to prejudice (AI bias), algorithms of “predictive justice” software can have a discriminatory effect, which needs to be identified. It is essential that algorithms are subject to independent and thorough review of whether there is bias in the data generated by the criminal justice system. In the judicial systems of technologically developed countries, AI also acquires the function of helping the judge to perform the judicial work faster and more efficiently. The application of “machine learning” technology to automatically generate judgments for judges leads to numerous risks, especially highlighted in criminal cases. Questions are raised about the reshaping of the role of the judge, and the right to be informed about the logic of decision-making and to challenge the scientific validity of the algorithm, which is an element of the principle of equality of arms. AI has the character of autonomy, so the question inevitably arises whether there is criminal responsibility for artificial intelligence, to what extent and in what way, and whether it is necessary to create new forms of responsibility and new subjects of responsibility in criminal law? In the sphere of substantive criminal law, theoretical considerations point to the potential regulation of the responsibility of producers, developers and users for actions taken by the AI.

Article intends to address question if there are European standards in the area of judiciary, mechanism of their development and influence on national judicial systems. Subsection is dedicated to topics that are covered by European standards, as well as to indicators used to evaluate achievments of standards. This issue is especially important in the process of European integration of Republic of Serbia and monitoring of progrees to achieve. Article analyses standards of independence, impartiality and integrity, as well as standard of efficiency.