EVALUATION OF JUDGES Lisbon 23 May 2018 Legal

EVALUATION OF JUDGES Lisbon, 23. May 2018.

Legal framework Law on the Judicial Council and Judges (“Official Gazette” no. 11/15 i 28/15) Rules on evaluation of judges and presidents of the courts

Objectives: �The work of judges, except for judges of the Supreme Court, shall be evaluated every three years, with a view to assess their expertise, quality and quantity of work, ethics and training needs, as well as for the purpose of promotion to a higher court.

Criteria for evaluation : � Professional knowledge � General capabilities for performing judicial function Professional knowledge of a judges shall be evaluated on the basis of the following sub-criteria: 1) Quantity and quality of work; 2) Preparation for trials; 3) Ability of planning and efficient implementation of procedural actions and skills of managing hearings; 4) Professional development.

1. The quantity and quality of work: shall be evaluated on the basis of the number of cases processed, the number of completed cases, the number of abolished decisions, the number of open hearings and hearings by the court of second instance, the number of adopted control requests, the number of decisions made within the statutory deadline and the explanation of the decision reasoning. 2. Preparation for trial shall be evaluated on the basis of accurately defined actions to be taken at the preliminary hearing and the evidence to be presented with their concentration. 3. The ability to plan and efficiently implement procedural actions shall be evaluated based on the ability of the judge to organize and efficiently execute procedural and other actions in accordance with the principle of efficiency and effectiveness of proceedings, and the skills of managing hearings based on the ability of a judge to manage a hearing in a clear and understandable manner, with respect for the procedural roles of the parties to the proceedings. 4. Professional development shall be evaluated on the basis of all activities undertaken by the judge in order to improve and apply knowledge and methods in work.

* General Capabilities for performing judicial function shall be evaluated on the basis of the following sub-criteria: 1. Communication skills; 2. Capability to adapt to changing circumstances; 3. Participation in various professional activities; 4. Capability to organize and coordinate of the court staff.

Ø Communication skills: showing respect for the parties, colleagues, and the court staff, Ø Capability to adapt to changing circumstances: shall be evaluated based on the ability to adapt to structural and organizational changes in the court, changes in laws and procedural rules, as well as new technologies and rules of work. Ø Participation in various professional activities: participation of the judge in trainings and other professional activities. Ø Capability to organize and coordinate of the court staff: ability of the judge to cooperate, organize and control the work of court staff- advisers, trainees and employees who work with judge.

Evaluating sources Evaluating of work of judges shall be made by inspecting: Ø 5 cases completed by a final and enforceable decision, randomly selected; Ø 5 cases completed by a final and enforceable decision, selected by the judge himself, Ø 5 cases completed by a final and enforceable decision in which decisions were abolished, randomly selected Ø A statistical report on the work of the judge, containing information on the work of the judge, data from the records on judges, information on the number of complaints and decisions on complaints against the work of the judge, information on the number of control requests in the cases of the judge and the decisions on the control requests, as well as the data on the number of cases in which a judicial decision was not made within the statutory deadline; Ø Minutes obtained through control of work of the court, and Ø Report of Judicial Training Center for Judges and Prosecutors.

Evaluating procedure Ø The judge whose work is evaluating shall prepare, on a prescribed form, a report containing a description of his judicial actions on the criteria and sub-criteria prescribed by the present Law, the grade of own work, and the cases that he / she chose for evaluating. Ø ( deadline: 8 days from beginning of evaluation) Ø The president of the court submit the report referred to a judge and the documentation necessary for the evaluation of judge to the Panel for evaluation of the judges. (within 5 days of receipt of the report of a judge). Ø The Panel for evaluation of the judges shall prepare a report on the evaluation of the judges under the criteria and sub-criteria prescribed by the present Law, within 30 days of submission of documents as well as prepare a proposal for a grade to be awarded to evaluated judge and shall submit it to the Commission for evaluation.

The Panel for evaluation: v Preparing a report in 30 days, v Preparing a grade proposal. The Commission for evaluation: Ø shall submit the proposal for a grade to the judge whose work is being evaluated, who have the right to declare on the proposal within 5 days of the submission of the proposal for a grade. Ø may request additional information and clarification from the Panel for evaluation. Ø may invite the judge for an interview before determining the final grade, for the purpose of clarification of certain issues. Ø Determining a Grade

Determining a Grade Ø A judge shall be graded excellent if his / her work in all subcriteria is evaluated as excellent, or as good in 2 sub-criteria and excellent in others. Ø A judge shall be graded good if his / her work in at least 5 sub -criteria is evaluated as good. Ø A judge shall be graded satisfactory if his / her work in at least 4 sub-criteria is evaluated as satisfactory. Ø A judge shall be graded not satisfactory if he / she is evaluated as not satisfactory in at least 2 sub-criteria A decision of the evaluation Commission shall be final and an administrative dispute may be initiated against it.

Evaluation period: � 3 years Exceptions: Ø If judge was graded as “not satisfactory” Ø A judge applied to the announcement for promotion to a higher court

Grade Consequences A judge who is evaluated with an excellent or good grade may be promoted to a higher court. A judge who is evaluated with a satisfactory and not satisfactory grade shall be referred to the mandatory programme of continuous training, in accordance with the law related to governing the training of judges. If a judge who is evaluated as excellent does not get promoted to a higher court within one year from the date of awarding an excellent grade, shall be entitled to a salary in the amount of the salary of the president of the court, until the appointment to a higher court or awarding a grade lower than excellent. Ø Dismissing: * If judge has been evaluated with a not satisfactory grade twice in a row (disciplinary sanction) * If the court president is awarded a not satisfactory grade, he / she shall be dismissed from the office of the court president. ”

Evaluation of court president Evaluation of the court presidents shall be conducted by the Evaluation Commission on the basis of proposal of the Panel for evaluation of the judges (4 judges from courts of higher instance and depend on instance of the court, member of the panel is: - the President of the High Misdemeanour Court when evaluating the President of a Misdemeanour Court or - the President of High Court when evaluating the President of a Basic Court from the territory of that High Court, - the President of the Appellate Court when evaluating the President of the Commercial Court and the Presidents of High Courts, or - the President of the Supreme Court when evaluating the President of the Administrative Court and the Appellate Court. The proposal for grade shall contain an evaluation grade of the work of the court president as president, so as judge.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION zeljka. jovovic@sudstvo. me