1. Evaluation of judges in Republic of Croatia Duro Sessa Justice of Supreme Court of Republic of Croatia President of Association of Croatian Judges

2. Introduction Judicial independence is a pre-requisite to the maintenance of the rule of law. Judicial independence is fundamental guarantee of a fair trail. Individual evaluation of judges must maintain total respect for judicial independence. Risk- evaluation has consequences for judge’s promotion, salary and pension or even can be reason for removal for office- Who judge is going to please? – Evaluators????

3. Ways to evaluate Formal evaluation ( Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Moldova, Monaco, The Nederlands, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine) Informal evaluation ( Czech Republic, Denmark, Iceland, Luxemburg, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, UK )

4. Aims of evaluation and criteria used Aims: Assessing, maintaining and improving the quality of work of judges and judicial system, promotion of judges, permanent appointment, disciplinary responsibility, salaries and pensions. Criteria: Quantitative, qualitative, clearance rates, ability to mediate, clear and comprehensive decisions, ability to cooperate with other judges, other activities as mentoring lecturing publishing

5. Evaluation of judges in Croatia Constitution, Laws and other Regulations Judiciary is indpendent and authomous state power with permanent tenure for judges. Judges are elected and promoted by State Judicial Council – 11 members- 7 judges, 2 MP-ies and 2 professors of Law faculties

6. When judges are evaluated? Conditions for appointment- law on State Judicial Council First appointment- only those candidates who will successfully finish School for Judges Evaluation of judges: If they apply for position of president of court It they apply for appointment to another court

7. Who is evaluating? Council of Judges. Body od judicial self-governance Evaluates judge’s performance, gives opinions and answer on topics connected with Code of ethic Composition- 15 judges ( 9 from appellate level- 6 from first instance level) Election- by secret ballot- all judges from particular court Each judge can be elected and has right to vote

8. Criteria for evaluation Listed in Law on Courts – Article 97. 1. Number of decisions which judge delivered in certain period of time ( not les than a year). This quantitative criteria is measured in relation to quantitative criteria set up for all judges in so called “Frame quantitative criteria for judges”. 2. Working results in absolute numbers and in percentage according to all type of cases. 3. Is a judge following the time frames for delivering decisions. 4. Quality of decisions which is measured in percentage of those decisions which are squashed by higher court. 5. Other activities of a judge. Document delivered by Ministry of Justice after the Opinion of General Assembly of Supreme Court is obtained. In procedural laws there are provisions in how many days decision has to be delivered to the parties after the hearings are closed. ( around 1 to 2 months.)

9. Methodology for Assessment To make this process transparent unified and fair to all judges, State Judicial Council delivers a Methodology how the assessment of judge’s work should be delivered. Result of assessment process is pronounced in a form of a decision which evaluates judges work on a base of points system. Each ruling has to be reasoned.

10. Decision on the Assessment Delivered by Council of Judges Decision can be: 1. “Excellent” if a judge gained 130 to 150 points. 2. “Very successful” if judge gained 110 to 129 points 3. “Successful” if a judge gained 90. to 109 points. 4. “Satisfactory” if a judge gained 70 to 89 points 5. “Not satisfactory” if a judge gained less than 70 points. Right to appeal to special panel of five Supreme Court Justices.

11. State Judicial Council State Judicial Council conducts an interview with the candidates to evaluate those who are most suitable for the vacant post Interview is opened to the public, all members of SJC give points to the candidate on their own assessment of the interview (from 1. to not more than 20) and then average number of points is calculated to each candidate. This points gained through the interview are added to the points in the Decision of Council of Judges and than final list of candidates is delivered by SJC. Candidate with highest number of points then is appointed for a vacant post.

12. Why the process of assessment is done? Law maker tried to establish such a system where there is high degree of probability that those judges who are best in their performance by objective criteria will be promoted to higher posts within judiciary.

13. Evaluation as part of disciplinary responsibility According to Law on State Judicial Council one of disciplinary offences is when a judge is not performing his/hers duties in a proper manner. In practice it means that quantitative criteria are not satisfied set in “Frame quantitative criteria for judges”.

14. Presidents of courts have a duty to control are judges performing their duties in proper manner and if they do not meet quantitative criteria without real and justified reason ( i.e. Illness, other duties, particular case etc.) presidents of courts have to initiate disciplinary proceedings against those judges. In that respect one aspect of assessment (quantitative performance) is done not by Council of Judges or High Council of Judiciary but by presidents of courts. High Judicial Council has only authority to decide on disciplinary responsibility of a judge assessment made by a president of court is matter of the proceeding and can be challenged as any other evidence in the case. Evaluation as part of disciplinary responsibility

15. Conclusion 1. Judges are evaluated in ordinary circumstances only if they apply for a promotion or transfer to another court or to become president of court, 2. Assessment is done by two bodies which both are judicial bodies, 3. Judges through their application, right to appeal against decision of Council of Judges and through interview before SJC have opportunity to express their own view on their activities and performance, 4. Judges have right to challenge the assessment before court (Supreme Court) 5. Interview before State Judicial Council which also brings some points to the candidates can open space for some misuse of the this stage in appointment process but only and when all eleven members of SJC would be in arrangement to do so which is not likely to happen, 6. Elements of assessment as they are defined in Law are pure judicial duties but data which is needed for fulfilling those elements is mostly based on statistic which sometimes could lead to wrong conclusions about abilities of a judge who is evaluated.

16. Thank You for your Attention