Experiences and improvement plans EVALUATION OF JUDGES IN REPUBLIC OF CROATIA – PURPOSE, CRITERIA AND METHODS Experiences and improvement plans Martina Vrdoljak Vanessa Pomykalo Ministry of justice of ROC Directorate for organisation of judiciary May, 2018.

EVALUATION OF WORK OF JUDGES – current state of affairs Courts Act from 2013. tried to resolve shortcomings of previous law changes: Uneven work of Judicial councils (Councils composed of 15 members, selected from judges and established on higher courts responsible for evaluation of work of judges – regular evaluation of judges work every five years, evaluation for the purpose of promotion of a judge on a higher instance and evaluation of candidates for president of the court) Out of court’s activities were evaluated relatively high Too many obligations for judicial councils May, 2018.

Courts act currently in force Judges are evaluated only if applied for promotion on a higher instance or for the position of president of the court Evaluation process is still in hands of competent Judicial councils President of the court every year establishes the fulfillment of framework criteria for every judge (decision) possibility of initiating disciplinary proceeding against judge who, without legitimate reason did not fulfill framework criteria in previous year May, 2018.

Courts act currently in force – critera of evaluation Article 97. of Courts Act: Number of decisions a judge issued in ratio to the number of decisions a judge had to issue according to Framework Criteria Work results according to the types of cases (in absolute numbers and percentage) Meeting deadlines Quality of decisions (when appeal is handed in) Other activities of a judge Every criteria is prescribed in details in the Methodology for evaluation of the work of judges May, 2018.

Problems encountered Framework criteria (bigest part of evaluation of the work of judges): Uneven evaluation of specific case categories on different court types disproportion of case weighting between case categories (eg. criminal and civil cases) uneven methodology of case weighting (weighting according to case type on one type of courts/ weighting according to type of decision on other type of courts) Uneven application of the methodology by 18 judicial councils across the cuntry Number of points according to the Methodology High percentage of candidates get highest number of points May, 2018.

Research conducted by judicial academy (2016.) Why judicial proceedings encounter excessive length? 220 judges filled out the questionnaire on 17 identified possible causes of excessive length of proceedings – one of them was the Methodology for evaluation of work of judges Biggest problem of the Methodology are Framework criteria Statement: „Framework criteria encourage resolving more simple cases before complex ones” May, 2018.

Future plans Amendments to Courts Act: second reading in Parliament Changes in competences of Judicial councils and acceleration in their decision making with aim to shorten the nomination process More objective criteria for the evaluation of the work of judges Acceleration in the process of implementation of the new Framework Criteria May, 2018.

Changes in competences of Judicial councils the judicial council of the courts in which the positions is to be fulfilled will be competent to make a decision on the performance of judicial duties and give opinions on the candidates for the positions of judges in advancement process new timeframe in which the judicial councils have to make a decision on the performance of judicial duties (45 days) and special council of the Supreme Court of the RoC has to make a decision upon appeals (15 days) change in appointment of members of special council of the Supreme Court of the RoC competent to decide on appeals against evaluation decisions – 3 judges of the Supreme Court to be appointed in an Annual Schedule of Tasks May, 2018.

more objective evaluation of the work of judges Article 97 of Courts Act specifying the criteria for the evaluation of performance of the judicial duties: Number of decisions a judge issued in ratio to the number of decisions a judge had to issue according to Framework Criteria, work results according to the types of cases (in absolute numbers and percentage) Quality of decisions (the number of decisions confirmed, repealed or modified in the ratio to the number of decisions against which a legal remedy was issued and the number of decisions repealed due to essential breach of procedure in the ratio to the number of decisions against which a legal remedy was issued) Proper performance of judicial duties (meeting deadlines, scheduling hearings, respecting the sequence of case …) Experience in the performance of judicial duties Other activities of a judge (participation in the professional development as a lecturer, publication of articles, participations in judicial council…) May, 2018.

Acceleration in the process of implementation of the new Framework Criteria Shorter timeframe in which the General Session of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia has to propose the Framework criteria to the Minister of Justice – 1 month instead 2 months May, 2018.

ENTRY INTO FORCE The Amendments to the Courts Act are going to be adopted in the Croatian Parliament at the beginning of the July 2018 but it will enter into force on 1 January 2019 The State Judicial Council will have 6 months upon entry into force of the Amendments to the Courts Act to adopt new Methodology on evaluation of performance of the judicial duties criteria The work on the new Framework Criteria will start upon adoption of the Amendments to the Courts Act in the Parliament May, 2018.

Regularly – every few Ad hoc – promotion on a higher instance or applicaton for the president of the court May, 2018.

Thank you for your attention! martina.vrdoljak@pravosudje.hr vanessa.pomykalo@pravosudje.hr May, 2018.