As a rule, Montenegrin judges will be evaluated once every five years, and with "justified reasons" they will be able not to achieve even 40 percent of the results of the quantity of work based on established standards, in at least 30 cases a year to exceed the deadlines for making decisions and in five cases not to take the case and they do not schedule hearings or searches, without it being observed that they work professionally and conscientiously, Action for Social Justice (ASP) announced.
They state that these are some of the proposed changes to the Law on the Judicial Council and Judges, as part of the judicial laws from the set of so-called IBAR laws, which the Government sent to the parliament for adoption, so that, ASP adds, Montenegro "receives the green light for the Temporary benchmarks and thereby achieved a new step in the integration process".
"In addition, the public will be excluded when making decisions on the disciplinary responsibility of judges, and the law on the protection of personal data will be applied to the data on the evaluations of the work of judges, which will certainly make it difficult to obtain data on the disciplinary responsibilities of those who administer justice to us, while the function of judges ends at the age of 67," it added.
They point out that, nevertheless, the judiciary has been assessed for years from domestic and international addresses as the weakest link in the overall institutional system of the country, "due to which its legal order has seriously collapsed", so in this sense, as they state, "it was realistic to expect that it would be increased control over the work of judges and the conditions for the quality and quantity of their work to be stricter, which is not the case with the proposed legal changes".
"According to the proposal, the work of judges is now evaluated every five years according to the evaluation plan, which will be determined by the Judicial Council, and exceptionally for three years, if the judge was elected for the first time or applied for promotion, as well as after one year, if received an 'unsatisfactory' rating," writes ASP.
The amendments also change the definitions of quantity and quality of work, as the two most important sub-criteria of evaluation, so in terms of quantity, it is stated that a judge receives an "unsatisfactory" grade if his work results are below 70 percent of the number of completed cases provided for by the "framework criteria for determining the required number of judges", but he will not receive that rating if he has justified reasons for it.
If the judge receives a rating of "unsatisfactory" twice in a row, it is considered a serious disciplinary offense.
"The quality of the work is evaluated based on the ratio of annulled and the total number of decisions made by the judge in the evaluation period, the number of examined decisions from the immediately higher court and the number of open hearings or hearings from the second-instance court, but this provision remains so general and undeveloped, even though it would be It is expedient and socially justifiable for the legislator to work it out and clearly define how the quality of work is numerically measured," says ASP.
Furthermore, they remind, the Constitution prescribes that the reason for the termination of a judge's function is unprofessional and unscrupulous work, and the legal amendments prescribe in more detail that these are situations if, without a justified reason, the judge does not achieve at least 60 percent of the results in terms of the quantity of work within the "framework criteria for determining of the required number of judges", does not take into operation at least five cases or does not schedule hearings or trials or otherwise delays the procedure in at least five cases, exceeds the deadline for drafting a decision in at least 30 cases within one year, and the overrun is not longer than 30 days or if, without justifiable reason, he exceeds the three-fold statutory deadline for making a decision in at least ten cases.
"One of the reasons for unprofessional and unconscionable work of a judge is if he becomes a member of a political party or begins to perform a parliamentary or other public function or professionally performs other activities incompatible with the function of a judge, if he has been given a disciplinary sanction for serious disciplinary offenses at least twice in a period of three years misdemeanors, or committed a more serious disciplinary offense as a result of which irreparable damage to the party occurred or significant damage was caused to the reputation of the judiciary," said the ASP.
According to the legal changes, as they state, the public is now excluded when voting on decisions of the Judicial Council and commissions, the disciplinary prosecutor and the disciplinary council appointed by the Judicial Council, as well as in the process of evaluating the work of judges and determining the disciplinary responsibility of judges, unless it is requested by the judge whose responsibility decides.
At the same time, they add, the provisions of the law governing the protection of personal data are applied to the protection of data on the procedure and results of judge evaluations, "so it is realistic to expect that all of this will cast additional 'darkness' on the data on evaluations and disciplinary responsibilities of judges." .
Unprofessional and negligent performance of the function is one of the two conditions for the most serious disciplinary offences. The second condition is if the judge has been convicted of a criminal offense that makes him unworthy of office, and the amendments define it as "an offense for which a prison sentence of more than one year is prescribed, and which was committed with intent".
"Also, the amendments to the law state that it is considered that the reason for the termination of a judge's office due to fulfilling the conditions for exercising the right to an old-age pension occurred when the judge, the president of the court, that is, the president of the Supreme Court reaches the age of 67. The age limit for the retirement of judges is has been one of the most commented topics in the public for a long time, and if this legal solution passes, it is indisputable that it will privilege judges, who bear the greatest responsibility for the poor evaluations of the state of the country's judicial system," the announcement concludes.
Bonus video:
