In the monograph, the authors confront the legal community with the recent legal history of failed attempts at improving Serbian judiciary, at restoring citizens’ trust in it, at setting a sound base for the law ruling over politics – at least in the most important elements in the judicial domain; the authors also present the results of such failed reform and investigate the legal and political causes of this failure. monograph is divided into two parts – the first part entitled Reforming the judiciary 2008-2010 was written by Vesna Rakic-Vodinelic, whilst the second one, entitled The 2011-2012 Review Process was written by Ana Knezevic Bojovic and Mario Reljanovic. division is both chronological and logical – the authors wanted to analyse the constitutional and legislative framework of the judicial reform in Serbia systematically and comprehensively, as well as practice of the bodies that carried out this reform, and offer a final assessment on the success of this endeavour, which was formally ended in July 2012, but the final outcome of which remains unknown. Consequently, the first part of the publication examines, at its very beginning, the legal theories behind what is considered good judiciary in a democratic state, and underlines the political independence of judges as a key element of this formula. author then critically examines the legal reception of European standards concerning the judiciary in Serbia. A special part is then dedicated to the international, theoretic, constitutional and legislative basis of the judicial reform of 2008. author scrutinizes the Serbian Constitution of 2006 and the Constitutional Act for the Implementation of the Constitution, and also the judicial organisation statutes, which were the normative grounds for the most invasive interventions in the judiciary in the democratic history of Serbia. decisions of the Serbian Constitutional Court and the corresponding separate opinions are analysed in detail. author then describes the manner of work of the bodies which carried out the reform, paying special attention to the composition and modus operandi of the first composition of the High Judicial Council and deficiencies observed with regards to both these issues. She then analyses the normative framework for reviewing the decisions adopted by the first composition of the High Judicial Council and the State Prosecutors’ Council, as an introduction into the second part of the publication.The second part is a detailed critical analysis of the process for reviewing the decisions on non-appointment of judges, public prosecutors and deputy public prosecutors. authors first describe, in detail, the work of the bodies conducting the procedures, analysing in particular the extent to which relevant procedural principles have been observed. They go on to analyse transparency of the work of the two bodies and assess whether they were truly independent bodies the actions of which were directed towards amending the mistakes made in the judicial reform. A part of the publication is dedicated to the analysis of the decisions adopted by the new compositions of the State Prosecutors’ Council and the High Judicial Council. authors then reflect on the role of various organisations which monitored the procedure and their influence on the course of the review process. At the very end, the authors analyse the decisions adopted by the Constitutional Court in July 2012, whereby the procedure was de facto restored to the stage prior to the 2009 appointment.In their conclusion, the authors are sharp but justified in their criticism of the attempts at reforming Serbian judiciary in accordance with European standards, and also give some general recommendations that should be followed in order to achieve the goal any democratic state should strive for – to have a truly independent and highly professional judiciary.