Download
1 / 24
240 likes | 467 Views
High Level Judicial Forum Second Judicial Reform Project (JRP2) Judicial System of Armenia World Bank. The Portuguese System for Judges’ evaluation. Yerevan, Armenia, January 30, 2012. José Manuel Duro Mateus Cardoso. PORTUGAL. 11 millions inhabitants; 1.962 Judges;
E N D
High Level Judicial Forum Second Judicial Reform Project (JRP2)Judicial System of Armenia World Bank The Portuguese System for Judges’ evaluation Yerevan, Armenia, January 30, 2012 José Manuel Duro Mateus Cardoso
PORTUGAL • 11 millions inhabitants; • 1.962 Judges; • 1.400 Public Prosecutors; • 30.000 Lawyers.
Portuguese Judicial High Council Has 17 members: • 7 elected by the Parliament; • The President of the Supreme Court of Justice. • 7 elected by the Parliament; • 2 appointed by the President of the Republic; • 7 Judges elected by all the Portuguese Judges.
Body of Inspectors • 20 inspectors distributed in 20 geographic areas. • One is the Inspector Coordinator who seeks to harmonize and standardize inspection procedures. • 3 years term with one possible renewal to more 3 years. • They carry procedures on evaluation and disciplinary matters.
Classifications • “Very Good” • “Good with Distinction” • “Good” • “Sufficient” • “Mediocre” Note: Mediocre involves the suspension and the opening of an inquiry.
Evaluation in 1st instance Courts • After the first year of exercise; • Every 4 years; • Judge marked with less than “Good” is inspected 2 years after the beginning of the last inspection; • Classification with more than 4 years is out of date.
Evaluation for Judges from a Court of Appeal • No regular evaluation but the High Council can determine inspection at any time; • Judges can ask for a special evaluating inspection if they are in position to be candidates to the Supreme Court of Justice; • An Extraordinary Inspector is appointed from the Judges of the Supreme Court by the High Council.
Annual Plan for Evaluating Inspections • In order to have every Judge evaluated every 4 years; • To provide equal number of inspections during the career and among the Judges with same seniority; • Chance to protest if an inspection should be on the Plan and it’s not; • Every year, between 400 and 500 Judges are on the Annual Plan.
Criteria Classification must consider: • The way Judges fulfil their duties; • The amount of work; • Difficulty and management of the work assigned; • Capacity to simplify the procedures; • Conditions how the work was done; • Technical preparation; • Intellectual category; • Published legal works; • Civic capacity.
Independence of the Judges • The inspection can not interfere with the independence of the Judges especially about the substantive merits of judgments and decisions, including the decisions of the facts proved and not proved and the underlying belief.
About the human ability to exercise the function • Civic competence; • Independence, impartiality and dignity of conduct; • Relationship with procedure intervenients, other judges, lawyers, other court professionals, court officials and the public in general; • Personal and professional prestige; • Reserve and serenity while exercising the function; • Ability to understand the specific situations under consideration and sense of justice, given the socio-cultural environment where the function is exercised; • Ability and dedication in the training of judges.
About the adjustment to the service • Common sense; • Assiduity, zeal and devotion; • Productivity; • Method; • Speed in decision; • Ability to simplify procedures; • Directing the court, the hearings and other steps, including regarding punctuality and timing of schedule.
About the analysis of technical preparation • Intellectual category; • Ability to seize the legal position in question; • Capacity to convince based on the quality of the arguments used in the reasoning of decisions, with particular emphasis on the original ones; • Capacity of synthesis; • Clarity and simplicity of exposition; • Knowledge revealed in the decisions.
Other elements • Previous inspection procedures; • Disciplinary record; • Previous classifications; • Statistics of procedures; • Works submitted by the Judge, 10 to the maximum, outside the scope of previous evaluations; • Information brought by the Judge. • Interviews with the Judge in the beginning and at the end of inspection.
Inspector Report contents • Facts and reasons, particularly on unfavourable references; • Proposal of a concrete classification to the High Council;
Classification Criteria • “Very Good” – highly meritorious performance throughout his career; • “Good with Distinction” – meritorious performance throughout his career; • “Good” – qualities deserving emphasis for the exercise of that office under the conditions in which developed the activity; • “Sufficient” – indispensable conditions for the exercise of the office with performance only satisfactory; • “Mediocre” – less than satisfactory performance.
Classification Evolution • 1st classification must not be over “Good”; • Gradual improvement not rising more than a step at a time; • Any improvement must not be simple consequence of Judges’ seniority; • “Very Good” only after 10 years in office, except in performances with particularly complex service.
After the Inspector Report • The Judge is notified and can answer, join elements and/or require any convenient steps; • After the answer, the inspector produces a Final Information; • Inspector can recommend a postponement for the proposal of classification; • Procedure is sent to the High Council.
Procedure in the High Council • If the Judge accepts the proposed classification and the “Permanent” approves it and the procedure ends; • If the Judge does not accept the proposed classification, the “Permanent” will take a decision; • The Judge can claim to the Plenary from the decision of the “Permanente”; • The Judge can appeal directly to the Supreme Court of Justice from the decision of the Plenary; • If the inspected is a Judge from a Court of Appeal, the competence is attributed directly to the Plenary.
Statistic View – 2011 • 303 inspections for evaluation were done; • 100 “Very Good” marks; • 123 “Good with Distinction” marks; • 57 “Good” marks; • 11 “Sufficient” marks; • 2 “Mediocre” mark; • 10 cases pending.
