Strasbourg, 27 September 2012
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CCJE-GT(2014)3 Strasbourg, 26 mars / March 2014 CONSEIL CONSULTATIF DE JUGES EUROPEENS (CCJE) / CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN JUDGES (CCJE) Compilation des réponses au Questionnaire pour la préparation de l'Avis n° 17 (2014) du CCJE sur justice, évaluation et indépendence / Compilation of replies to the Questionnaire for the preparation of the CCJE Opinion No. 17 (2014) on justice, evaluation and independence Table of Contents Albania / Albanie..................................................................................................................................................... 3 Austria / Autriche .................................................................................................................................................... 9 Belgium / Belgique................................................................................................................................................ 14 Bosnia and Herzegovina – Bosnie Herzégovine .................................................................................................... 20 Bulgaria / Bulgarie................................................................................................................................................. 26 Croatia /Croatie..................................................................................................................................................... 47 Cyprus / Chypre.................................................................................................................................................... 52 Czech Republic / Republique Tchèque.................................................................................................................. 55 Denmark / Danemark............................................................................................................................................ 58 Estonia / Estonie................................................................................................................................................... 61 Finland / Finlande ................................................................................................................................................. 64 France .................................................................................................................................................................. 68 Georgia / Géorgie ................................................................................................................................................. 79 Germany / Allemagne ........................................................................................................................................... 84 Greece / Grèce ..................................................................................................................................................... 90 Hungary / Hongrie................................................................................................................................................. 94 Iceland / Islande.................................................................................................................................................... 97 Italy / Italie ............................................................................................................................................................ 99 Luxembourg........................................................................................................................................................ 121 Monaco............................................................................................................................................................... 124 Netherlands / Pays-Bas ...................................................................................................................................... 129 Republic of Moldova / Republique de Moldova.................................................................................................... 139 Romania / Roumanie .......................................................................................................................................... 144 Slovakia / Slovaquie............................................................................................................................................ 150 Slovenia / Slovénie ............................................................................................................................................. 154 1 Sweden / Suède ................................................................................................................................................. 160 Switzerland / Suisse............................................................................................................................................ 164 The « former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia »................................................................................................. 168 Turkey / Turquie.................................................................................................................................................. 173 United Kingdom / Royaume-Uni .......................................................................................................................... 179 2 Albania / Albanie Introduction The questionnaire aims at collecting information, as much as possible, about the evaluation of performance of functioning judges. Therefore, the questionnaire is not related to the process of selection and/or recruitment of judges. The replies to the questionnaire will serve to identify the prevailing practices in the member States, and they will be used in the process of preparation of the CCJE Opinion No. 17 (2014), indicated above. A. Individual evaluation and assessment of judges: purpose and regulatory framework 1. Does individual evaluation and/or assessment of judges exist in your country? Yes. 2. If yes, what is its purpose and rationale? To identify professional values of judges for the effect of their career; To identify Judges with professional insufficiency and judges with the highest performance; To determine the problems faced in court during verification of their professional activity; To identify ongoing training needs of judges, serving to increase the professionalism of the judges of the courts of first instance and the appellate courts, as well as the chairman’s of these courts. 3. Is it compulsory or optional, and does it apply to all judges in the country? According to the Albanian law it’s compulsory. The High Council of Justice, in November of each year, determines courts, whose judges will be evaluated in the following year and the evaluation period. 4. How it is established and regulated: by legislation; by subordinate legislation; by internal institutional regulatory instruments. B. Criteria for evaluation and assessment 5. Are there quantitative performance indicators that have to be taken into account, such as: the number of cases in which a decision has been made by a judge; “yes” the average time spent on each of these cases; “yes” the average number of hearings per case; “yes” clearance rate (number of the cases, where a decision has been made, vis-à-vis the total of the cases forwarded to the judge); “yes” the average time to judgment (the time required to deliver a judgment by a judge after the completed hearing); “yes” any other quantitative indicators. “No” 6. Are there qualitative performance indicators that have to be taken into account, such as: analysis of the type, subject and complexity of the cases dealt with by a judge and his/her decisions; “yes” the number of appeals vis-à-vis the number of the cases, where a decision has been made; “yes” the number of decisions reversed and/or cases remitted by the appellate court; “yes” the types of cases where decisions were reversed and/or cases remitted (criminal, civil, administrative or other); “yes” the grounds for reversal and/or remittal; “yes” 3 any other qualitative indicators. “No” 7. Are there any other indicators that are taken into account in assessing the judge, such as the opinions of the court users, the judicial hierarchy, court experts and others concerned in the judicial process, as well as press articles? According to the Albanian legislation these indicators aren’t part of the evaluation of judges. Regarding “Judicial hierarchy” the chairman of the court of first instance or of the appeal court evaluates the judges. 8. Does the evaluation take into account possible violations of ethical and professional rules/standards adopted for judges? Yes. Article 9 “Legal professional and technical skills”, foreseen:” In the group of professional legal criteria and technical skills of the judges, are included: a) The clarity of writing of the decision; b) Ability to conduct litigation; c) Ability to create and administrate a judicial dossier. Article 14 “Judge ethic during and outside the process”, of the decision of the High Council of Justice for “Judge Assessment System” foreseen:” This criteria evaluate judges communication skills during court hearings, and the manner of their behavior”. 9. Is there any set scale of importance or of priority between various performance indicators? (please specify) No. Professional and ethical evaluation of judges is conducted in accumulative way according to these criteria: a) professional, organizational and implementing skills; b) Legal professional and technical skills; c) human capacity