1. Increasing Judicial Independence and Accountability
Results from three tables
Warsaw, June, 2005

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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.

5. 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.