HWC - Brussels meeting Session 1 Classic methods for the evaluation of the quality of justice in Hungary – Matyas Bencze & Agnes Kovacs (University of Debrecen)

Main characteristics of selection and evaluation of judges in Hungary Judicial S&E is a judicial business External perspective is not incorporated in the S&E mechanism Very detailed and objective S&E criteria Balanced mix of objective and subjective elements in the S&E mechanism

Selection Previous external work experience  not required => Selection pool: court clerks (97%) internal career line judge trainee court clerk district court judgehigher court judge Crucial: admission test for court clerks Competence and skill oriented test OK But! possibility of skipping the admission test hiring as administrative employee with law degree)

Proportion of successful external/internal candidates Year Total number of applicants Number of newly appointed judges Number of successful “internal” candidates Number of successful “external” candidates 2013 588 43 40 3 2014 508 67 66 1 2015 554 57 56 2016 559 59

Appointment to judgeship No written or oral examination  scoring system Objective elements: List of achievements awarded (objective points) Result of bar exam, job evaluation, service time, academic degree etc. Physical and psychological assessment (not completely adequate) Subjective elements (judges decide on who can be a judge) Interview conducted by the local judicial council (subjective points) Re-ranking the first three applicants by the president of court and the President of NOJ

Evaluation - promotion Career line = going up in the hierarchy  reflected in the evaluation (incompetent, competent, highly competent, and highly competent for a higher judicial position) Objective elements: very detailed assessment criteria (three aspects: quantitative, qualitative and judicial skills) based on case files, judgement, quality of judicial writing, visiting court hearings, opinion of second instance panels, statistical data Subjective elements Evaluation by the immediate superior judge Risks: Fragmentation of the judicial practice Incentive to align the judicial practice to the immediate higher courts (independence?)

Other quality-related developments Practice-oriented compulsory training for clerks and junior judges (uniform)  mostly held by senior judges (including a course of judicial writing) “instructor” judge for junior judges (one year, consultative function) Postgraduate degree (specialization of judges)

Summary Quality is a judicial business Quality of performance regarding individual judges are assessed and improved (almost) exclusively by other judges Very few feedback from outside of the judiciary Who is a high quality judge? – the one who meets the internal professional standards Positive side: very detailed assessment criteria exist

Evaluation of courts – actors, aims huge emphasis on the evaluation of courts’ activity centralized process (NOJ – special model of court administration) little external contribution (e.g. users’ perspective) purpose: meet strategic objectives (6 goals) case and staff allocation (huge workload imbalances) - no direct link between evaluation and (financial) resource allocation

Evaluation of courts – indicators activity effectiveness („numbers”) indicators (determined at the national level) incoming cases resolved cases backlog („old” cases: pending over two years) timeliness workload (case/judge) appeal rate/rate of quashed judgments („soundness of adjudication”)

Evaluation of courts – allocation of responsibility responsibility: court presidents (disciplinary proceedings) supervisor: President of the National Office for the Judiciary  yearly court reports submitted to the NOJ  annual reports by the President of the NOJ are published a new trend: - workload measurement

Evaluation of courts – workload measurement aim: balanced workload (strategic goal) tool: workload measurement - establishing „case weights” for case allocation (within courts) - „ratio tables” for staff allocation (incoming cases/judicial staff)

Evaluation of courts – conclusions „STATISTICAL APPROACH” one aspect of quality is mostly stressed detailed statistics (reliability, comparability) appeal rate – quality benchmark highly centralized evaluation process

The „Debrecen Model” bottom-up initiative (3 pillars) “combination of management tools, case distribution and motivation techniques” introducing „case weights” (pioneer) various management tools  judicial independence (?) motivational system (holidays) success: cutting the backlog, timeliness (EFFECTIVENESS) limits of nationwide implementation