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.

Law on the Judicial Council and Judges 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) General 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 adapt 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 Basic Courts 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 judges. 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 president 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!