QUOTA SYTEMS SLOVENIAN EXPERIENCE

1. the judge’s view Janja Roblek senior district court judge President District court in Kranj QUOTA SYTEMSSLOVENIAN EXPERIENCE

2. Quota Systems in Slovenian Judiciary till 1995 • At all times, judges were facing some kind of quota system (i.e. norm), which was focused on a work of the individual judge: • the judges in court or departments agreed themselvesto resolve a certain number of cases per month or • the president of the court or of a higher court has (ordered) requested from the judges to resolve a certain number of cases per month (nothing written); • each year's award: judge - shock worker

3. Case weighting • Due to different complexity of cases, some judges were often not able to meet the so-called norm, so some courts or even departments tried some sort of case weighting, e.g.: • withdrawal of a claim:1,3 points • trespassing: 3,2 points • divorce case (without children): 4 points • interest action: 4,3 points • determination of way of necessity:5,5 points • surety cases: 8 points • divorce cases with custody, visiting rights and alimony:10 points • damages claim (material and immaterial):14 points • ownership or inheritance action: 18 points • constructional action: 24 points • Monthly sum had to be at least 110 points or percent (100 as the fulfilment of obligations and at least 10 due to the commitment to a judges profession) • There was no system of evaluation and promotion of judges. • Salaries of judges were equal, the difference was only due to the the length of service.

4. 2. Judicial reform (1.1. 1995) • 23.12.1991 Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia • June 1994 the Courts Act the Judicial Service Act • Judges are evaluated (assesed) every 3 years. • Evaluations are made by personnel councils (initially the same, then directly to higher courts). • Judges are classified in salary grades. • Judge can advance to the next salary grade every three years, unless he/she has first obtained the assessment that he/she is entitled to promotion.

5. Criteria for assessment written by law - Art 29. Judicial Service Act : The assessment of judicial service shall be compiled in consideration of the following criteria:1. professional knowledge, whereby consideration shall especially be taken of the judge’s professional activities, the judge’s specialist and postgraduate studies, and the reputation achieved by the judge in the legal profession;2. working capabilities, whereby consideration shall especially be taken of the ratio between the volume of judicial work performed and the expected volume, of whether the judge schedules and conducts hearings continually, of timeliness of drawing up judicial decisions and timeliness of proceeding with regard to applied legal remedies;3. the ability to resolve legal questions, whereby consideration shall especially be taken of the level of correctness and legality achieved in the judge’s decision-making as determined primarily in procedures with legal remedies, of whether the judge is taking into consideration good judicial practice and of judge’s abilities to resolve complicated and complex cases;4. work performed in elimination and prevention of the judicial backlog, especially processing of cases in the order they are being filed, taking into account the number of assigned cases as well as the ratio between the number of completed cases defined as judicial backlog and the number of all completed cases, the ratio between the number of completed urgent cases defined as judicial backlog and the number of all completed urgent cases, and the number of concluded court settlements;

6. Criteria for assessment written by law - Art 29. Judicial Service Act : 5. safeguarding of the reputation of the judge and the court as determined from the way in which procedures are conducted, communication with parties and other bodies, the preserving of independence, impartiality, reliability and uprightness, and behaviour inside and outside the service;6. the ability of verbal and written expression, as proceeds from the records of the cases handled, judicial decisions drawn up and the judge’s professional action; 7. additional work undertaken in holding judicial office, within the framework of mentorship, participation in education, professional training, preparation of regulations and carrying out other demanding professional tasks;8. the attitude towards colleagues in performing judicial work;9. the ability to perform the functions of a managerial position, if the judge is appointed to such a position, as shown by the work results in the area entrusted to the judge.The assessment of judicial service must contain details on the fulfilment of all the criteria specified in the previous paragraph.

7. Problems: • many (older) judges have retired • many (experienced) judges left the judiciary • procedures for the election of judges on permanent tenure (Judicial Council - Parliament - “lustration” article) • increasing caseload in the courts • Judicial council :How to compare the judges - there were no uniform criteria for the workload of judges • How many judges do we need in each court depending on the number of cases accrued to and the number of solved cases?

8. 3. Amendment of the Courts Act 2000 - QUOTAS • Judicial Council may adopt criteria for the expected workload of judges. • On 1. 1. 2001 the uniform criteria - Quotas for all judges in the country stepped into force. • the 2004 amendment of the Courts act (Official Gazette of RS, no. 73/2004, the Courts Act-D): the Judicial Council adopts the criteria for the minimum expected volume and quality criteria for the work of the judges for the assessment of judicial service • the 2009 Amendment to the Courts Act (Official Gazette of RS, no. 96/2009, the CA-S): the Judicial Council adopts criteria for the average expected volume and quality criteria for the work of the judges for the assessment of judicial service and also criteria for quality of work of courts and determines the number of judicial posts in a given court (in 2013 the latter was transferred back to the jurisdiction of the Supreme court)

9. 4.Judicial Council abolished the numerical norm - quota system for judges (1. 1. 2016) • assessment of judicial service: explanatory instead of numerical criteria • numerical data for information only • new art. 28 of the Judicial Service Act

10. new art. 28 of the Judicial Service Act The selection of candidates for the judicial post, and the decision on promotion the following criteria should be respected:- working skills and expert knowledge, taking into account in particular the capacity of written and oral expression, the ability of analytical thinking, ability to work structured and range of expert knowledge to the work field of the judge, - personal characteristics, taking into account the particular responsibility, reliability and prudence,- social skills, taking into account the particular communication skills and management skills in conflict situations,- ability to carry out the tasks of the management post, where a judge is appointed to such a post, taking into account in particular the results of the work in the field, which is entrusted to the judge.The criteria and procedure for selecting candidates and the criteria for promotion shall be further specified in the criteria for the selection of candidates for the judicial post or in the criteria for the quality of the work of judges for the assessment of judicial service.

11. 5. Disadvantages caused by the quota system • judges preferred to resolve simple cases • court backlogs have increased • reaching the quota constitutes a constant pressure on a judge • a threat to the independence of the judge • judges work is intellectual work • was it really efficient?

12. 6. How to improve the system? • from the assessment of an individual judge to the assessment of the efficiency of the court • decrease in number of incoming cases • focusing to quality more than quantity of judicial work

13. Thank you for your atention! further information: janja.roblek@sodisce.si