U radu je sadržana kvalitativna i kvantitativna analiza važnih pokazatelja koji se odnose na usklađenost propisa Srbije sa pravnim tekovinama Evropske unije. Rad analizira opšti regulatorni okvir u postupku usvajanja propisa i regulatorni okvir koji se odnosi na proces pridruživanja. Polazna teza je da pridruživanje doprinosi fragmentaciji i može da kompromituje pitanje dobrog upravljanja. Imajući u vidu tu činjenicu, poseban značaj dobija sistemski odgovor za prevazilaženje fragmentacije. Srbija ima razvijene institucionalne i regulatorne mehanizme koji mogu pomoći u prevazilaženju ovih problema, ali se oni ne primenjuju u dovoljnoj meri i treba ih jačati. Posebno se ukazuje na značaj analize efekata propisa, izradu tabela usklađenosti i jačanje uloge Republičkog sekretarijata za javne politike.

No abstract

Achievements in the rule of law are the very backbone of the EU accession process. Over the past decade, the rule of law has come into the focus of EU internal policies. Rule of law in the EU is no longer an abstract duty but has gained considerable substance. This claim can be supported by the noted multiplication of various mechanisms and instruments to promote and uphold the rule of law within the EU. This renders the fluid concept of the rule of law an even harder-to-pinpoint, moving target for candidate countries. What is more, in the very context of the EU accession process, the methodology of reporting on rule of law achievements in candidate countries has been changing over the years, without ever being explicitly explained. The number and diversity of mechanisms the EU uses to monitor the state of facts related to the rule of law in its member states, the similarities but also notable differences compared to the indicators used to monitor the progress of candidate countries and the different sources the EU utilizes in these exercises complicates mutual comparisons and the setting of clear long-term goals in the accession process. At the same time, there still seems to be a threat of the candidate countries perceiving rule of law reforms as measurable goals to be achieved rather than internalizing them as a continuous aspiration towards the rule of law. The recent discussions related to the rule of law within the EU are mostly focused on the functioning of the judiciary, in this paper, the authors limit their analysis to the state of facts in Serbia in the field of judiciary. More specifically, the authors use selected aspects of judicial efficiency and quality of the judiciary as paradigmatic examples, supported by clear statistical data, to illustrate the achievements of Serbia in the field of the rule of law, through a comparison with relevant results of EU member states. The authors open their analysis with an overview of the complex set of tools and instruments used to monitor the rule of law in EU member states. This is done to illustrate the continually moving target of the EU acquis related to the rule of law. The authors then point to the methodological challenges found when trying to compare various available datasets and analyses related to the judiciary in Serbia as a candidate country. The authors then present and analyse statistical data illustrating the current state of facts in the Serbian judiciary, relying on selected indicators of efficiency and quality. They conclude that, despite some progress being made over the past years, Serbia still lags behind those EU member states that demonstrate the best results. The judicial system in Serbia is still a system where resources are not optimally distributed and where judicial proceedings are lengthy. The authors conclude that even precisely formulated interim benchmarks related to the judiciary fail to provide sufficient incentive for more meaningful and durable achievements. The authors suggest that a systemic comparison of the efficiency and quality of the Serbian judicial system with that of best-performing EU member states rather than with other candidate countries could provide a new impetus for systemic reforms and reinvigorate the accession efforts.

No abstract

The case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) pertaining to human rights protection of legal persons, including corporate entities, is well developed and extensively analyzed in legal literature. The international law of human rights is in the process of transformation from imposition of obligations only on States, to gradually taking into consideration the accountability of non-State actors, particularly corporate entities. The objective of the paper is to analyze the conceptualization of corporate accountability for violations of human rights in the case law of the ECtHR. The paper shows that the ECtHR thus far has approached the corporate accountability and has called for regulation of corporate activities at the national level by means of applying the doctrine of horizontal effect of rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) referred to as Drittwirkung and the doctrine of positive obligations of the states. The authors argue that the ECtHR so far in its jurisprudence has missed to fully take into account the overarching social and policy developments, and that it should take a more proactive role in conceptualizing its approach to violations of human rights committed by corporate entities.