Increasing Judicial Independence and Accountability Results from three tables Warsaw, June, 2005
Judicial Councils regarded as “better” than prior systems for Selecting, disciplining, promoting, evaluating judges and prosecutors Thereby enhancing judicial independence However, experience is short and there is much variation in how councils are structured, what powers they have, and how they use them
While none works perfecting, following seem important Judges should be a majority in the council, but a counterbalance and other views are needed Role of Ministry of Justice is problematic in many cases How councils do their work is key (e.g. clear criteria, transparency, to whom members respond) Their decisions on dismissals should be reviewable beyond the council Possibly different processes for judges and prosecutors
Budgetary control varies MOJ, independent body, council, and mixed systems Not clear there is a problem here Not clear which system is preferred Does appear to be a problem when courts do not have control over hiring or supervising their own staff.
Accountability – best linked to transparency Transparency of councils’ operations protects both public and judges Assets declarations for judges– usually required, but ideas on publication vary Use of statistics – publication and comparison with international data Publication of judgments important, but note this is not the norm in Western Europe – recent ruling of E. Court on privacy complicates situation Press – can be irresponsible but also is important in pushing for improved performance.