In a session held on May 2, the government adopted the bill regulating the judicial judiciary. This development marks a new chapter in a years-long debate over the means of achieving judicial independence and, by extension, reforming the judicial judiciary. It also comes as part of the implementation of the reformist promises made by the new presidency and the government’s policy statement.

After viewing the bill’s content (particularly the latest amendments), and in conjunction with the previous statements that we issued on this topic on 13 December 2023, 31 July 2023, and 18 January 2022, we would like to note the following:

1. We welcome the judicial judiciary regulation bill and the societal and institutional efforts that were made within the framework of the Justice Forum, the Ministry of Justice, and the Council of Ministers in order to achieve it. Hopefully, these efforts will continue until the bill is adopted by Parliament, thereby paving the way for the adoption of reforms to the administrative, financial, military, and religious branches of the judiciary. We also hope that these efforts will continue toward establishing the necessary mechanisms to properly implement the new law, particularly with regard to the inspection and evaluation procedures, the mechanisms allowing candidates to run for important judicial positions, and the drafting of a judicial ethics code that best suits the judiciary’s role and situation under the current circumstances.

2. The bill contains some flaws that we hope will be addressed before the final version is adopted in the parliamentary debates:

• All individual, organizational, and disciplinary decisions made by the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), as an administrative body, should be challengeable before the State Council, pursuant to the principle of the natural judge.
• The principle of running for judicial positions that require the sixth grade or higher should be adopted, in line with the Venice Commission’s recommendations regarding establishing clear mechanisms for prioritizing the criterion of competence.
• The SJC majority needed to override any disagreement with the minister of justice over the judicial personnel charts should be reduced from seven members to an absolute majority, pursuant to the Venice Commission’s recommendations.
• The duty to deliver prior notification of media appearances should be removed in order to avoid any pressure being placed on freedom of expression.
• A mechanism should be established for overcoming government obstruction to the appointment of ex officio members of the SJC, general inspectors, or Judicial Inspection Authority inspectors. For example, the SJC could be granted decision-making power in the case that the appointment decrees are not issued within a specific timeframe.

We also call for a final technical review of the text to fine-tune its phrasing in light of its intended purpose and judicial independence principles and standards and to prevent any confusion over its interpretation or application.

3. We call upon parliamentary authorities to promptly put the text to debate so that it may be adopted once the aforementioned issues are addressed. However, these authorities should adhere to the choices agreed upon in the Justice Forum in order to preserve the law’s participatory nature and uphold the principles and standards of judicial independence.