The Kresimirian Judiciary is the system of courts that interprets and applies the law in the Divine Republic of Kresimiria. Established by the 1921 Constitution, the judiciary is a four-tiered hierarchical system designed to uphold the “Justice of Kresimirianism” and protect the integrity of the Republic.
The system is characterized by the exceptionally long tenure of its judges (known as Justices), who serve thirty-year terms, and the significant control the executive and legislative branches hold over judicial appointments.
Structure
The judiciary is divided into federal tribunals and local district courts. The hierarchy is defined by the Constitution to ensure that legal ambiguity is resolved by the highest authority.
The Superior Tribunal
The Superior Tribunal is the supreme court of the Republic. Located in the capital, Sinj, it is the final arbiter of constitutional law.
- Composition: Eleven Superior Justices.
- Role: To interpret the Constitution and derivative laws. It has the power of Judicial Review, allowing it to strike down Acts of the Assembly deemed unconstitutional or “contrary to the values of the Republic.” It also issues non-binding preliminary opinions on legislative proposals.
- Jurisdiction: It hears appeals from the Appellate Tribunal and District Courts. Its decisions are final and cannot be appealed.
The Appellate Tribunal
The Appellate Tribunal serves as the dedicated court of appeals for the lower branches.
- Composition: Seven Appellate Justices, chaired by a Chief Appellate Justice.
- Role: To hear cases where a defendant or plaintiff disputes the ruling of a District Court or the Inferior Tribunal.
- Procedure: The Constitution mandates that the original court must be given the opportunity to review its own decision first. If the plaintiff remains unsatisfied, the case moves to the Appellate Tribunal. It is required to hear an appeal on a single case at least once but may rule to prevent further frivolous appeals.
The District Courts
The District Courts form the primary level of the judiciary for geographically specific cases. There are ten District Courts, one for each of the Federal Districts (e.g., the District IV Court in Severnivaraje).
- Composition: Seven District Justices per court.
- Role: To hear criminal and civil cases relevant to their specific district. They are constitutionally obligated to hear relevant cases and must issue decisions within six months.
- Referral: If a District Court deems a case irrelevant to its jurisdiction (e.g., a cross-border dispute), it refers the matter to the Inferior Tribunal.
The Inferior Tribunal
The Inferior Tribunal functions as a catch-all court for federal cases that do not fall under the jurisdiction of a specific District Court. Despite its name, it holds the same level of authority as the District Courts.
- Composition: Eleven Inferior Justices, chaired by a Chief Inferior Justice.
- Role: To hear petitions not distinctly related to a single district, or cases referred to it by District Courts or the Superior Tribunal. It cannot refuse to hear a case referred to it unless the Superior Tribunal intervenes.
Appointments and Tenure
Kresimirian Justices serve fixed thirty-year terms. These terms are synchronized to begin in 1922 and renew every three decades (1952, 1982, 2012, etc.). Appointments occur 28 days after the general election of Senators, ensuring the newly elected Assembly votes on the confirmation.
Federal Appointments
Justices of the Superior, Appellate, and Inferior Tribunals are appointed personally by the Divine Chancellor. These appointments must be confirmed by a two-thirds majority of the Assembly. The Chancellor has the option to retain sitting Justices or replace the entire bench at the end of a term.
District Appointments
Justices of the District Courts are appointed by the two Senators representing that specific district.
- Selection: Appointments are made between two and four weeks after the election. In the event of a disagreement between the two Senators, the preference of the longer-serving Senator takes precedence. If terms are equal, the elder Senator decides.
- Veto: District appointments do not require automatic Assembly confirmation, but they can be vetoed by the Chancellor or by a simple majority vote of the Assembly if a specific proposal to review the appointment is submitted.
Removal and Accountability
While Justices serve long terms, they are not immune to removal. A Justice of any court may be summoned to the Assembly to face a Resolution of Replacement.
- Grounds: Acting contrary to their oath, the values of Kresimirianism, or the interests of the Republic.
- Process: The Divine Chancellor may dismiss a Superior Justice, subject to a two-thirds approval vote from the Assembly.
Record Keeping
The Constitution mandates transparency in judicial rulings. Every decision must be committed to a written form and stored in the Federal Archive. Justices are required to sign their names to their votes (In Favour or Opposing) and must write and sign opinions justifying their decisions.
Notable Case Law
Throughout the history of the Republic, the judiciary has played a pivotal role in interpreting the Constitution, defining the limits of state power, and resolving the conflicts between the Kresimirian establishment and the Bosken minority. The following is a list of the twenty most significant cases heard by the various courts.
The Foundational Era (1921–1960)
1. In re: The Electoral Succession Act (1925)
- Court: Superior Tribunal
- Significance: A landmark constitutional review initiated by Senator Josipa Vukel challenging the legality of the 1924 Emergency Amendment. Vukel argued that the amendment was passed under duress (military occupation of District X) and was therefore void. The Tribunal ruled 9–2 in favor of the State, establishing the precedent that the Assembly has the absolute right to amend the Constitution regardless of external security conditions, provided the vote count meets the threshold.
2. The State v. Sauerbeck (1932)
- Court: District V Court (Moskiprovac)
- Significance: The criminal trial of Maxi Sauerbeck, the architect of the 1931 Anniversary Attack. The defense argued for prisoner of war status; the court rejected this, classifying BRC-21 members as “criminal insurgents” rather than soldiers. Sauerbeck was sentenced to life imprisonment, establishing the legal framework for prosecuting Bosken militants as common criminals.
3. Matek v. Council for Internal Affairs (1934)
- Court: Superior Tribunal
- Significance: A challenge brought by CRF leader Eward Matek against the 1933 National Security Act. Matek argued that the “Internal Passport” system violated the spirit of the Constitution. The Tribunal upheld the Act 8-3, ruling that “individual liberty cannot exist without the survival of the State,” thereby legalizing the restriction of movement for national security.
4. Civic Renewal Front v. The Chancellory (1943)
- Court: Superior Tribunal
- Significance: Following the passage of the 1942 Chancellor’s Authority Act, the CRF challenged the retroactive application of the Chancellor’s veto. The Tribunal ruled 7-4 that the Veto power was absolute and could be applied to any bill not yet signed into law, significantly strengthening the executive branch under Chancellor Kresimirovic II.
5. Council for Defence v. Otonik Ordnance (1955)
- Court: Inferior Tribunal
- Significance: A contract dispute in which the government sought to prevent Otonik Ordnance from selling the Kres-55 rifle to foreign buyers. The court ruled 10-1 that “State-Chartered Private Corporations” are subject to the total discretion of the Council for Defence regarding exports, confirming the state’s stranglehold on the arms industry.
The Treaty and Transition Era (1961–1980)
6. Sons of Kresimir v. The State (1961)
- Court: Superior Tribunal
- Significance: One of the most important legal challenges in Kresimirian history. The Sons of Kresimir, led by Davor Banit sued to stop the implementation of the Treaty of Brod Moravice, specifically the waiving of the Faith Restriction Clause in District X. The Tribunal ruled 6–5 that the amendment was constitutional because it followed proper legislative procedure, effectively saving the peace process.
7. The State v. 14 Officers (1965)
- Court: Appellate Tribunal
- Significance: Following the Treaty, several Kresimirian Army officers were charged with war crimes committed in Moraviskameja during the 1950s. The court dismissed the charges, citing a secret “State Immunity” clause within the Treaty negotiations that protected state actors from prosecution for actions taken during the “emergency.” This ruling caused riots in Brod Moravice.
8. District X v. Council for Divinity (1974)
- Court: Superior Tribunal
- Significance: The BLF-led government of District X sued for the right to display Pravoslavic religious art in public buildings. The Tribunal ruled in a compromise: District X could display the art, but only in “cultural” contexts, not “state” contexts, leading to the creation of the Bosken Heritage Foundation as a vehicle for cultural display.
9. In re: Article 31 (1980)
- Court: Superior Tribunal
- Significance: A Diviner in District III attempted to revoke the citizenship of a woman who sought an abortion, claiming it violated religious law. The Tribunal unanimously upheld the supremacy of Article 31 (Bodily Autonomy) over the Diviner’s discretion, reaffirming the Constitution’s socially progressive tenets even within a theocracy.
The Industrial Era (1981–2000)
10. Maj Holdings v. Council for Development (1989)
- Court: Superior Tribunal
- Significance: Bran Maj sued the government to prevent the nationalization of his railway assets under the State Enterprise Act. The court ruled in favor of the state, establishing the precedent that “strategic interest” supersedes private property rights. This ruling allowed the creation of Republic Rail.
11. The State v. Wrba (1993)
- Court: District V Court (Moskiprovac)
- Significance: The corruption trial of former Senator Mlada Wrba. The swift conviction and harsh sentencing (12 years) were seen as an attempt by the Blue Dawn establishment to purge its own ranks and distance itself from the scandal following their 1992 electoral defeat.
12. SZNO v. Maj Steel (1996)
- Court: Appellate Tribunal
- Significance: A labor dispute where the SZNO trade union claimed Maj Holdings was using strikebreakers illegally. The court ruled in favor of the corporation, stating that private security could be used to protect assets during “unauthorized labor stoppages,” weakening the power of unions in the private sector.
13. The State v. Maj Holdings (1999)
- Court: District VIII Court (Zahodecelska)
- Significance: The criminal negligence trial following the 1998 Cetingrad Steelworks Incident. The company was found guilty but received only a fine, sparking accusations that the judiciary in District VIII was under the political influence of Vjetrusa Senator Misko Maretic.
The Modern Era (2001–Present)
14. CRF v. Maj (2004)
- Court: Superior Tribunal (Petition Denied)
- Significance: The CRF attempted to sue Senator Bran Maj for insider trading regarding the acquisition of state agricultural assets. The Tribunal refused to hear the case, citing a lack of “direct evidence,” establishing a high bar for prosecuting sitting Senators.
15. Vasilis v. TRK (2008)
- Court: Inferior Tribunal
- Significance: Stoyan Vasilis sued the state broadcaster Tele-Radio Kresimiria for unequal airtime during the election campaign. The court ruled that TRK has a duty to report on the “Government’s activities,” justifying the disproportionate coverage of Blue Dawn officials.
16. Council for Internal Affairs v. The Estate of Jochen Schoff (2012)
- Court: District X Court (Moraviskameja)
- Significance: The state sought to seize land owned by the family of the missing terrorist Jochen Schoff. The court ruled that without a death certificate or a criminal conviction (as Schoff was never captured), the property could not be seized, a rare legal victory for the Bosken community against the CIA.
17. Maj Logistics v. YakaSys (2016)
- Court: District II Court (Kakerovecska)
- Significance: Maj Holdings sued YakaSys over licensing fees for the mandatory KresiX OS. The court dismissed the case, ruling that as KresiX was mandated by the Digital Vigilance Act, standard commercial pricing laws did not apply.
18. Kresimirian Manufacturing Coalition v. Maj Holdings (2017)
- Court: Superior Tribunal
- Significance: Known as the “Iron Triangle” case. A coalition of small businesses sued Maj Holdings for anti-competitive practices. The Tribunal ruled that while Maj’s vertical integration was aggressive, it was not unconstitutional, effectively sanctioning the existence of the conglomerate monopoly.
19. The State v. “User 449” (2019)
- Court: Inferior Tribunal
- Significance: The first high-profile conviction under the Digital Vigilance Act. A citizen was sentenced to five years in prison for “digital sedition” based solely on evidence gathered by the Guardian Daemon on their phone, cementing the legality of warrantless digital surveillance.
20. Volansky v. Civic Renewal Front (2021)
- Court: District IX Court (Decelska)
- Significance: Former CRF leader Boj Volansky sued his own party to prevent them from removing him as leader. The court dismissed the suit, ruling that internal party matters are not subject to judicial intervention, paving the way for Vesna Horvatin to take control of the party.