Rule of law

The changes to legislation affecting the judiciary were frequently brought up during discussions. These changes were seen as an attempt to dismantle the justice system and enable the adoption of legislation without restraints from judicial control. Legal professionals (mainly judges) who were political allies of the current government supported the changes being implemented in the judicial system. They had reportedly been appointed to a newly created public affairs chamber in the courts. Rules for the submission of applications and the decisionmaking process had been widely criticised by the opposition. There were street protests against the reforms, but these only led to slight modifications.

Some claim that making it possible to review any judgment dating back twenty years without the possibility for an appeal undermined legal certainty. Only the Prosecutor General and the Ombudsman were able to file such an extraordinary procedure, and there were several restrictions concerning time limits and the nature of the case under consideration. Reportedly, only a very limited number of complaints had been filed so far.

Concerns were also expressed about the expanded possibilities for disciplinary procedures against judges and prosecutors, which could be initiated based on the content of judgments. Some contended that critics of the government were not being objective, as pre-existing problems with the judiciary had not previously been criticised under the former government.