Specific Objective 1.3
Strengthening and consolidating the governing bodies of the justice system in accordance with European standards, through the creation and development of capacities to carry out the activity independently, efficiently and with professional standards; services provided by justice governance bodies meets relevant rules and standards.
Objective 1.3 is in line with Policy Goal 1. It even seems to be the objective that is directly related to the fulfillment of this policy.
The objective includes the activity of three institutions, namely HJC, HPC and HIJ. Its main focus is the strengthening/consolidation of the governing bodies of justice according to European standards. This strengthening will be oriented in two directions: First, the creation and development of capacities for carrying out the activity of these institutions with independence, efficiency and professional standards. Second, the services that these institutions provide as part of their authority, to the judiciary and the prosecution office, shall meet the rules and standards of the respective field.
A prerequisite for the independent, efficient operation of justice governing institutions, as well as for their provision of services according to standards, is their consolidation. The latter means at the same time adequate financial and infrastructural resources, as well as adequate human capacities for development according to the standards of services for the administration and management of the judicial system, and that of the prosecution office. It is clear that the more consolidated the institutions are, the greater the guarantees that they will exercise their authority independently, efficiently and in accordance with the highest professional standards. Consequently, the exercise of powers conferred by the Constitution and the law on these bodies, such as appointments, promotions, transfers, verifications, disciplinary proceedings and inspections, will also be a consequence of a meritocracy process, thus affecting the restoration of public trust in the system.
This Objective increases the trust in the activity of these institutions. Independence and impartiality in enforcing legislation as regards the appointment, transfer and promotion of judges, prosecutors and legal advisors, as well as transparency in the applied procedures, would increase trust in the HJC and the HPC. On the other hand, the operation of these bodies in accordance with the standards of this domain, would bring about as a final product the increase of the efficiency of the judicial system and the prosecution office. Also, investigations conducted by HIJ should be thorough, comprehensive, based on facts and evidence, and transparent. They should be carried out free of external or internal influences, making the most objective assessment of the situation. Only all of these together would affect the citizens’ trust in these institutions and in the justice system itself. So, then we could see the accomplishment of one of the main goals of the Justice Reform.
The objective is formulated in a single sentence that leaves room for ambiguity. In this regard, we suggest avoiding one of the terms strengthening/consolidation, as long as they carry the same meaning. We also suggest that the term “creation and development of capacity” be revised, because as long as institutions have been established and are operational, the capacity creation phase seems to be over and, at the moment, we are more concerned with further capacity development and growth of. In order to clarify the language, the part “services provided by government institutions meet the relevant rules and standards” could be reviewed, as long as its distinction from the second part of the sentence is not very clear (to perform the activity with independence, efficiency and professional standards”). Clarification of this language would make the Objective more understandable in relation to the outcomes expected of it or the respective measures.
The objective is relevant in relation to the current and near-future needs of the justice system. We are currently at the stage when institutions have been set up, have infrastructure and resources, and, to a considerable extent, have completed their legal basis, both in terms of the rules of their operation, and in relation to the role and authority they have against the judiciary and the prosecution system. At this stage, it is important to consolidate them through further capacity development, replenishment of resources where needed at the HJC, HPC, HIJ, as well as the impartial, independent and transparent application of the rules on appointments, promotions and transfers, professional ethics, disciplinary proceedings, inspections, etc. The realization of this objective within the timeframe of the Strategy is deemed as realistic and is related to the public’s expectations of an independent and qualitative justice system.
It is further concluded that this specific objective was partly found in CJS I. Specifically, Objective 1 provided: Strengthening the independence, efficiency, effectiveness and accountability of the justice system institutions. Basically, both the wording of Objective 1.3 in CJS II and that of Objective 1 in CJS I mean the same thing, despite the fact that CJS I used a more comprehensive term. Consequently, this remains an objective in line with the needs related to justice system policies.
Also, Specific Objective 1.3 is in coherence with the strategic documents of the bodies involved in it: HJC, HPC and HIJ.
It complies with the 2018 – 2020 Strategic Plan of the High Judicial Council for the Judicial System, specifically with its Goals 2 and 4, which envisage as objectives of the HJC, respectively “Improving standards of judicial excellence, implementation and monitoring of their implementation in practice” and “Strengthening the internal capacities of HJC.”
Coherence is also observed between this objective and the objective foreseen in HPC Program 1: Prosecutors’ career advancement based on their individual professional performance, as well as in Program 3: Prosecutors’ accountability ensured through the disciplinary system of “2021 – 2024 Strategic Plan for the High Prosecutorial Council”.
There is also a connection with the 2020-2022 Action Plan and Strategic Plan of the HIJ Office, namely Strategic Objective 1, which provides: ‘Strengthening and exercising the activity of the Office of the High Inspector of Justice in an independent, efficient and professional manner’; as well as Objective 2: ‘Development of the process of verification, disciplinary investigation and inspection in accordance with the principles of disciplinary proceedings and international standards’
All of the above Objectives are in line with CJS II Strategic Objective. This means that it is a common objective and that work is ongoing to achieve it.
This objective will be finalized in 3 expected outcomes, which will be analyzed and which are in coherence with it. Achieving the objective will firstly enable the HJC, HPC and HIJ to be consolidated, with the necessary capacities and resources to fulfill the duties and responsibilities, and secondly, in function of this premise, their authority in relation to the judiciary and the prosecution office shall be exercised according to the relevant required standards.
What is seen as a shortcoming in the overall treatment of this objective is the lack of concrete measures envisaged to achieve all the intended goals and the lack of indicators that would make the progress made in relation to the Objective itself a measurable one. These shortcomings will be addressed below, but it should be noted that their incompleteness affects its actual realization.
Conclusion: Specific Objective 1.3 is in line with Policy Goal 1. It is also in line with CJS Strategic Objective 1. The objective is also in line with the objectives of justice reform, one of the aims of which has been to allow justice institutions to exercise their authority completely independently (from other powers), efficiently and in accordance with professional standards (i.e., appointments, promotions and transfers based on the principles of meritocracy and transparency), as well as the performance of verifications/relevant investigations, disciplinary proceedings and inspections be based on a clear, transparent and accountable legal framework.
What can be revised in this objective is the language, which once clarified, as suggested above, would enable a more accurate understanding of the directions of this objective and would create greater coherence with the measures and the expected outcomes which will be analyzed below. On the other hand, it would be necessary to complement it with additional measures, which would enable its application in practice. Also, to measure progress in achieving this objective, it would be necessary for CJS II to add indicators that would measure each outcome listed in this Objective (see below analysis).