Slovenia

Three Faces of the ‘Post-Socialist’ Juvenile Justice Systems

“…The very opposite development is reported from the Slovenian system, where the primary source of ambiguity is the lack of legislative attention paid to the codification of a separate juvenile act (CRC, 2013, 77; Filipčič and Plesničar, 2017: 397–398). This, however, does not affect the consistent approach of both the appointed juvenile judges and the prosecutors who follow the expediency principle and divert children from the justice system.…”

“…In the initial process that translated these ideas into regulations in Europe at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, a choice had to be made between expanding the roles of child protection and creating a separate forum for juvenile delinquents within the justice system. Central European countries built their juvenile justice systems upon the German-Austrian normative traditions and legal theory, but they were also inspired by the American developments at the time (Filipčič and Plesničar, 2017: 395; Lévay, 2016). They introduced justice-based systems, which resembled the adult justice systems, their distinguishing feature being their leniency and a well-articulated reformatory mission.…”

“…In the Czech Republic, where juvenile matters are regulated in a separate law since 1931, the Juvenile Justice Act (JJA) brought about an education and restorative justice-oriented regulation in 2003 (Válková and Hulmáková, 2010: 253). In Slovenia, the codification of the distinct, education-oriented practice and the exceptionalist principles in juvenile justice is still ongoing (Filipčič and Plesničar, 2017: 397–398). Concurrently, the Hungarian vision about the place and role of juvenile justice has turned to an immensely different direction in the last decade.…”

“…In Central Europe, ‘specialisation’ refers primarily to a special training in the practice that is led by senior juvenile judges and is best described as ‘knowledge transfer through practice’. These judges will then become appointed ‘juvenile’ judges of local or regional courts, who deal with both juvenile and adult cases, depending on the caseload (Filipčič and Plesničar, 2017: 402; Lévay, 2016). Judicial panels of more serious cases are supplemented by lay members with a relevant non-legal professional background (Gensing, 2011: 1611).…”

“…These recommendations, however, did not emphasise the pressing need for additional procedural guarantees that could support the required specialisation. Procedural requirements, such as closed hearings, the mandatory attendance of the child, the involvement of child protection agencies, and trying juveniles and adults separately are basic requirements in the other two countries, but yet to be implemented in Hungary (Filipčič and Plesničar, 2017; Válková and Hulmáková, 2010).…”