European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) Councils for the Judiciary in EU Countries Prof. Wim Voermans and Dr Pim Albers _____ L/Archief/Intern/Middelen/Documentatie/Organisaties en Instellingen-Councils of Justice in Europe def.version March 2003 . European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) Councils for the Judiciary in EU Countries Prof. Wim Voermans and Dr Pim Albers . Preface This report reflects an explorative comparative study conducted in the Netherlands in 1998 and 1999, which had been commissioned by the Ministry of Justice in preparation for the establishment of a council for the judiciary in the Netherlands. In January 1999, the TAIEX Bureau of the European Commission asked whether the report could be used as basic material for a project in support of the Czech Republic’s entry into the European Union. As a result of this request, the report was translated into English and a chapter about the Czech Republic and the plans for a council for the judiciary developed in that country was added. The research reported on was completed in January 1999 (and − as far as the Czech part is concerned − in May 1999). After that, it was sent to contact persons in the countries that had been the subject of the research, who were requested to make comments. Various contacts sent in comments in the course of 1999 and 2000, and these were incorporated into the report. This means that the report is out of date in some respects, but we thought the material interesting enough to present in book form. This report could be a first step in the process leading to a broader evaluation and characterization of councils for the judiciary in Europe and in the world. In 2001, information was gathered about the Croatian Council for the Judiciary within the framework of a EU project concerning the administration of justice in Croatia. This material was used to add a chapter about this Council to the report. We − and the translators who have produced this English edition − welcome any comments and we hope that in the future this study will be supplemented with other reports about the Councils for the Judiciary. Leiden/The Hague, February 2003 Wim Voermans Pim Albers 3 Index CHAPTER 1. RESEARCH INTO COUNCILS FOR THE JUDICIARY IN EU COUNTRIES......................9 1.1. REASON FOR THE RESEARCH: A COUNCIL FOR THE JUDICIARY IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC .......................................................9 1.2. THE PRINCIPLES OF THE REFORM OF THE CZECH JUDICIARY AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION................................................10 1.3. CENTRAL RESEARCH QUESTION ...............................................11 1.4. RESEARCH APPROACH ..........................................................11 THE EU COUNTRIES TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE RESEARCH ........11 ASPECTS TO BE COMPARED............................................................... 12 CHAPTER 2. MODELS OF COUNCILS FOR THE JUDICIARY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION .......................................................... 14 2.1. NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN EUROPEAN MODEL OF COUNCILS FOR THE JUDICIARY ............................................................ 14 2.2. COUNTRIES WITH A COUNCIL FOR THE JUDICIARY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SOUTHERN EUROPEAN MODEL ................ 14 2.3. COUNTRIES WITH A COUNCIL FOR THE JUDICIARY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NORTHERN EUROPEAN MODEL................ 15 2.4. CASE STUDIES INTO EXAMPLES OF THE DIFFERENT MODELS: EXPERIENCES .................................................................... 17 CHAPTER 3. SWEDEN (DOMSTOLSVERKET) .................. 18 3.1. THE CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION OF THE JUDICIARY IN SWEDEN .......................................................................... 18 BASIC ORGANISATION OF THE JUDICIARY IN SWEDEN........................ 19 3.2. MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND PUBLIC CONTROL IN SWEDEN ......................................................................... 20 3.3. THE SWEDISH COUNCIL FOR THE JUDICIARY (DOMSTOLSVERKET): COMPOSITION AND COMPETENCES ...............22 THE JUDICIAL MANAGEMENT AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT ....23 ALLOCATION OF THE BUDGET FUNDS FOR THE JUDICIARY .................24 THE MANAGEMENT AND THE SPENDING OF THE FUNDS .....................25 FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ...........................................................25 SUPERVISION OF THE MANAGEMENT ................................................26 3.4. INTERMEDIATE CONCLUSION, SWEDEN ....................................26 3.5. COMPARATIVE OVERVIEW OF THE TASKS AND COMPETENCES OF THE SWEDISH DOMSTOLSVERKET .......................................27 CHAPTER 4. IRELAND (COURTS SERVICE) .....................29 4 4.1. THE CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION OF THE JUDICIARY IN IRELAND..........................................................................29 THE JUDICIAL ORGANISATION IN IRELAND .......................................30 4.2. MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND PUBLIC CONTROL OF THE JUDICIAL PROCEDURE IN IRELAND .......................................... 31 4.3. THE IRISH COUNCIL FOR THE JUDICIARY (COURTS SERVICE): COMPOSITION AND COMPETENCES...........................................34 OBJECTIVES TO BE REACHED WITH THE COURTS SERVICE ................. 37 4.4. INTERMEDIATE CONCLUSION, IRELAND ....................................38 4.5. COMPARATIVE OVERVIEW OF THE TASKS AND COMPETENCES OF THE IRISH COURTS SERVICE ..............................................39 CHAPTER 5. DENMARK (DOMSTOLSSTYRELSEN).......... 41 5.1. THE CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION OF THE JUDICIARY IN DENMARK ........................................................................ 41 JUDICIAL ORGANISATION IN DENMARK ............................................42 5.2. MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND PUBLIC CONTROL IN DENMARK ........................................................................42 5.3. THE DANISH COUNCIL FOR THE JUDICIARY (DOMSTOLSSTYRELSEN): COMPOSITION AND COMPETENCES...........44 5.4. INTERMEDIATE CONCLUSION, DENMARK ..................................46 5.5. COMPARATIVE OVERVIEW OF THE TASKS AND COMPETENCES OF THE DANISH DOMSTOLSSTYRELSEN.....................................47 CHAPTER 6. FRANCE (CONSEIL SUPÉRIEUR DE LA MAGISTRATURE)....................................49 6.1. THE CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION OF THE JUDICIARY IN FRANCE ...........................................................................49 MAIN ASPECTS OF THE ORGANISATION OF THE FRENCH JUDICIARY ...50 6.2. SCOPE OF THE MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND PUBLIC CONTROL IN THE FRENCH SYSTEM...........................................53 6.3. THE FRENCH COUNCIL FOR THE MAGISTRATURE (CONSEIL SUPÉRIEUR DE LA MAGISTRATURE): COMPOSITION AND DUTIES ............................................................................56 THE ROLE OF THE CSM WITH JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS AND PROMOTIONS...................................................................................59 THE ROLE OF THE CSM WITH THE DISCIPLINARY JURISDICTION........ 61 6.4. INTERMEDIATE CONCLUSION, FRANCE .....................................63 6.5. COMPARATIVE OVERVIEW OF THE TASKS AND COMPETENCES OF THE FRENCH CONSEIL SUPÉRIEUR DE LA MAGISTRATURE ..........64 CHAPTER 7. ITALY (CONSIGLIO SUPERIORE DELLA MAGISTRATURA).............................65 5 7.1. THE CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION OF THE JUDICIARY IN ITALY..........65 ORGANIZATION OF THE JUDICIARY IN ITALY .....................................66 7.2. MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND PUBLIC CONTROL IN ITALY ........67 SUPERVISION OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE JUDICIAL ORGANIZATIONS..68 BUDGETING OF THE JUDICIAL ORGANIZATION ..................................69 7.3. THE CONSIGLIO SUPERIORE DELLA MAGISTRATURA: COMPOSITION AND COMPETENCES...........................................70 NON-JUDICIAL MEMBERS IN THE ITALIAN CSM................................ 71 FUTURE .......................................................................................... 72 THE ROLE OF THE CSM IN APPOINTMENT, PROMOTION AND POSTING 72 THE ROLE OF THE CSM IN THE DISCIPLINARY JURISDICTION............. 75 OTHER COMPETENCES OF THE CSM................................................. 75 7.4. INTERMEDIATE CONCLUSION, ITALY ........................................76 7.5. COMPARATIVE OVERVIEW: TASKS AND COMPETENCIES OF THE ITALIAN CSM.................................................................... 77 CHAPTER 8. THE CZECH REPUBLIC ................................79 8.1. THE CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION OF THE JUDICIARY IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC ...............................................................79 ORGANIZATION OF THE JUDICIARY IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC.............79 8.2. MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND PUBLIC CONTROL IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC ...............................................................82 8.3. A ‘SUPREME JUDICIAL COUNCIL’ IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC ............85 8.4. INTERMEDIATE CONCLUSION, THE CZECH REPUBLIC................... 88 8.5. COMPARATIVE OVERVIEW OF THE TASKS AND COMPETENCES OF THE ‘SUPREME JUDICIAL COUNCIL’ IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC ....................................................................... 90 CHAPTER 9. CROATIA (STATE JUDICIAL COUNCIL) ..............................................................78 9.1 THE CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION OF THE JUDICIARY IN CROATIA .......78 9.2 MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN CROATIA...................................... 80 9.3 THE STATE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CROATIA: COMPOSITION AND POWERS ................................................................................... 81 CHAPTER 10. FROM AN UNDIVIDED MODEL TO A COUNCIL FOR THE JUDICIARY: THE NETHERLANDS ............................................97