Professional evaluation of judges - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Professional evaluation of judges

Montenegro,

Experience of Evaluation Panel

The reasons for establishment of the

system

for evaluation of judges

In

the practice of Montenegro so far, there has been no

system

for

professional evaluation of judges.

Performance of

judges

was

controlled

only through

the fulfillment of the

so-called

annual

orientation quota for

certain types of cases

which the

judges

handled.

Professional evaluation of

the performance of judges

is the

attainment of

the European Union,

towards

which we aspire, and this is undoubtedly

one

of

important

reasons why Montenegro opted for

the

system

for

evaluation of judges. Evaluation of judges is done to assess their expertise,

quantity

and quality of work, ethics and training needs, as well as for the purpose of promotion to a higher court

(

Art

. 87 para. 1

of the Law

on the Judicial Council and

Judges

).

Ultimately,

evaluation

of judges leads to the answer to the question: who can

be a

judge and who does not deserve it,

which is why he/she should be dismissed.

Legislation

Law

on the Judicial Council and Judges

Rules

for the

evaluation of

judges and court presidents

Average benchmarks for the quantity

of

work for

basic

courts with

over twelve

judges

http://sudovi.me/sscg/sudskisavjet/propisi

Evaluation Criteria

The judge is evaluated on the basis of

:

1

)

Expert knowledge

2) G

eneral

abilities

to perform

judicial

function

1. Expert knowledge of judges

Sub-criteria:

Quantity

and quality of work;

Preparation

for the trial;

Ability

to plan and

effectively conduct procedural

actions and skills of conducting hearings;

Professional development.

2.

General ability to perform

judicial function

Sub-criteria:

Communication

skills;

Ability

to

ad

a

pt

to the

changing circumstances

;

Participation in

various professional

activities

;

Ability to

organise

and coordinate court

staff

Comments on specific legal solutions

The Law on the Judicial Council and

Judges sets out that evaluation

of the work of judges, based on the aforementioned criteria,

is

carried out by

gaining insight into:

1)

five randomly selected cases that were closed with final court

decisions;

2

)

five cases of the judge` s own choice that were closed with final court

decisions;

3

)

five randomly selected cases closed with final court decisions in which court decisions were

quashed.

Exceptions

Evaluation panel took the position that

it should

exempt the

cases

that

ended with final judgments through court

settlement,

claim withdrawal,

cases where the judgment was

delivered

based on

consensual divorce,

the judgment

rejecting the

charges

etc

.

since

such cases did

not provide enough parameters

for the

quality of the

judge being evaluated.

Sub-criteria: quality and quantity

Average benchmarks for the quantity of work are determined by

dividing the total number of cases resolved in

one

year in a particular matter

for

a particular category of courts

by a

number of judges who

worked on

this

matter.

Note of the

Panel

for Evaluation

of

Judges

is

that rules should not have classified the

B

asic

C

ourts in

Nikšić

(17 judges) and Kotor (15 judges)

in

the same category

as

the Basic Court

in Podgorica

(

around 40

judges

)

.

Sub-criteria: quality and quantity

Article 11

the Rules

,

amongst

other things,

sets out:

judge, who had 30% or more

quashed

decisions

in relation to the total number of

cases,

in which

a

decision was

rendered in the same period

- according to this criterion is

evaluated with the grade

- unsatisfactory.

The

judge who had less than 30%

of quashed

decisions

in relation to the total number of

cases,

in which a decision was rendered in the same period -

satisfactory

.

The

Panel

is

of the opinion that the

thresholds of

this indicator

are unrealistic and that

this indicator should

have been

correlated with the total number of

the appealed decisions,

and not

to

the total number of cases in

which

decision was

rendered in the same period.

Sub-criteria:

Number

of reopened hearings

Article 12

of the Rules regulates the following

:

A judge in whose cases a trial or hearing

was instituted in appeals procedure in

30% or more cases in which

decision was rendered on the

appeal - unsatisfactory

;

A judge in whose cases a trial or hearing

was instituted in appeals procedure

in less than 30% of cases in which

decision was rendered on the appeal

- satisfactory.

Practice of

the

Evaluation Committee shows

that the

threshold of

this indicator is too unrealistic

, that it is set too

high and that it

should be

limited - reduced.

Sub-criteria: Adopted requests for review

Art.13

of the Rules

sets out

:

A

judge in whose cases

more than 15 requests for review have

been adopted - unsatisfactory;

A judge in whose cases less than 15

requests for review have been adopted -

satisfactory.

Practice of the Evaluation Committee

shows that the

threshold of

this indicator is

also too unrealistic, that it is set too

high and that it

should be

limited - reduced.

Sub-criteria: Quality of reasoning

Art

.

15

of the Rules

set out, amongst other things, the following

:

Reasoning is incomprehensible, without indicating reasons for decisive facts or these reasons are vague and contradictory - unsatisfactory.

Reasoning which is complete, clear, concise is graded as -

satisfactory;

Evaluation Committee took the position

that

the indicator

"quality of reasoning" had to be, because of its undoubted importance,

envisaged as sub-criterion in the legislation. According to the finding of the Committee, importance of the

"quality

of

reasoning"

falls within the scope of important

sub-criteria

: "preparation

for

trial"(

Article 17 of the

Rules),

and

"ability

to plan and

effectively implement procedural

actions and

skills for conducting hearings"(

Article 18

of the Rules)

Consequences of evaluation

A judge who is

evaluated with

satisfactory

and

unsatisfactory

grade

is referred

to the mandatory

programme

of continuous training, in accordance with the law governing the training of

j

udges

.

A judge who is

graded as

excellent

or

good

can

be promoted to

a higher court;

If

the

judge who is

graded

as

excellent

does

not get promoted to a higher court within one year from the date of

being graded as excellent he/she is entitled

to a salary in the amount of

the salary of the

p

resident of the court in which

he/she

exercises judicial office, until

election to

a higher court or

until he/she is given the grade which is lower

than excellent

.

Conclusions

The results gave two possible directions

: First

, as seen through the prism of the need to change some

legislative solutions

Second

,

necessary

changes in the work of judges in order to

produce better results, thus achieving better grades in

some future evaluation.

Thank you for your attention!