Specific Objective 2.4
“Improvement of the judicial system in order to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of all levels of the judicial system, including the High Court and ensuring the provision of transparent, prompt and accessible justice for citizens. (Note: activities involving the HJC as the governing authority in the judiciary are integrated into this Specific Objective due to the integrated character of the judicial system. The expected outcomes below reflect the strategic goals written in the HJC strategic plan).”
In terms of how it is formulated, Specific Objective 2.4 covers the judicial system as a whole (i.e., the three levels of the judicial system). It is oriented in two directions: First, in order to increase the “effectiveness and efficiency of all levels of the judicial system”. Secondly, to “provide transparent, prompt and accessible justice to citizens“. In this view, this objective is in line with Policy Goal 2.
This Objective is in line with the objectives of the Justice Reform and the legal framework that regulates the governance and organization and functioning of the judiciary. Effectiveness and efficiency are sustainable objectives over time, which are achieved through an ongoing process. In this respect, this objective is current. The key to its success is the accurate identification of measures that fit the current state of the judicial system.
This Objective is partly the same as that of CJS I ‘Objective 1: Strengthen the independence, efficiency, effectiveness and accountability of the justice system institutions’. The objective used to have a broader focus, covering the entire justice system. This is a solution dictated by the circumstances, as at the time of drafting CJS I, the governing bodies of the justice system had not yet become operational. After the establishment of the institutions, the focus has been the approval of the regulatory framework, the acts that regulate the activity of the HJC itself. Furthermore, the High Court has not been functional, and part of the judicial system (appeal level) has been significantly affected by the transitional re-evaluation process. Therefore, the Specific Objectives, Outcomes and Measures of that time failed to be accomplished during the validity of that Strategy. Given this situation, they have been rightly adapted in order to integrate into CJS II.
The objective is in coherence with the current state of the judiciary and the public’s expectations regarding the results of the application of the Justice Reform. It relates to the urgent need of the judiciary (all its levels) to be more effective, more efficient, more transparent, more accessible and to deliver justice without delay. Currently the efficiency of the justice system is being questioned. The vacancies created in the system due to the process of transitional re-evaluation of magistrates (vetting), as well as the accumulated backlog, have placed the judiciary and its governing bodies to face the challenges related to the standards of ‘justice without delay’ or with “accessible justice”. The Objective is therefore in coherence with the current needs of the system. Given that the HJC is operational and has a strategic objective of applying the principles of judicial excellence, this Objective is realistic.
Also, as long as Policy Goal 2 requires a system in line with European standards, we suggest that in addition to efficiency and effectiveness, the independence of the judiciary be included. The years of lack of trust in the justice system and skepticism about the results of the Justice Reform so far would require measurable results related to independence. Also, independence is a sustainable standard, which should be aimed at all times, on an ongoing basis. The independence of the institutions of the judiciary (envisaged in Objective 1.3) should be seen as a separate process from the independence of the judiciary, as long as the measures to achieve them are different. Certainly, the transparency envisaged in this objective in the provision of judicial services would give us qualitative data on the independence of the latter.
This objective is in line with the two sectoral strategies. It coincides with Objectives 1 and 3 of the HJC 2019-2020 Strategic Plan: “Accelerating the Judiciary Reform and Allocation of Resources” and “Efficient Service Delivery and Better Functioning of Courts”
Fulfillment of this Objective is related to 5 outcomes. First, from the way these outcomes are formulated, for the most part they look more like measures than outcomes and therefore need to be reformulated. Secondly, not all of these outcomes are in line with Objective 2.4. Outcome 2.4.4 on strengthening and increasing the HJC capacity, relates to Objective 1.3 more than with this one. Certainly the strengthening of capacities and resources in the governing institution of the judiciary, leads to an increase in its efficiency and independence. But the goal of efficiency and effectiveness in the judiciary does not result in HJC capacity building and empowerment. Even if in this case the problem lies in the way of formulation, we are still of the opinion that despite the integrated nature of the judiciary, CJS II should separate the objectives, outcomes and measures related to the governing bodies of the judiciary from those that deal with the judiciary itself.
In this way it would be easier to identify the outcome indicators and measure and monitor them. The same goes for Outcome 2.4.5. This Outcome does not clarify how the objective of an efficient and effective, accessible and transparent judiciary will lead to effective external communication and coordination of the judiciary with partners, independent institutions or HIJ. Furthermore, if we look at the measures pertaining to this outcome (Measures 2.4.6 2.4.7-2.4.8 and 2.4.9), we note that they refer more to transparency and coordination between the institutions of the judiciary than to the latter himself. Therefore, as for Outcome 2.4.4, we think that this outcome does not serve this objective and is more related to the coordination and transparency of the institutions of the judiciary itself.
If we refer to the measures in fulfillment of this objective, we find that they should be complete and more detailed for each expected outcome in fulfillment of the goals under Objective 2.4. Since effectiveness and efficiency have several measurable components in themselves, we suggest that each of their components be divided into concrete measures. There are also no measures for the High Court, which is explicitly included in the Objective, and where the completion of its structure with staff, and addressing the backlog created in this Court and at all levels of the judiciary is one of the main factors that directly affects the efficiency of the judicial system today. Lack of measures or indicators to measure progress in addressing the accumulated backlog affects the efficiency and effectiveness not only of the High Court, but of the entire judicial system.
Regarding the indicators for measuring this objective, it is believed that they are limited in terms of the goals contained in the Objective. While they can measure time in the administration of justice (and this without involving the High Court), they leave out of the focus of their monitoring a number of other components related to the effectiveness and efficiency of the judiciary, or transparency and accessibility. Also, these indicators are difficult to relate to the measures envisaged (at least in the current way of their formulation).
Conclusion: Specific Objective 2.4 is in coherence with the current need of the judiciary (at all levels) to be more efficient and effective, more transparent, more accessible and to deliver justice without delays. This is an essential objective for the proper functioning of the judicial system. We suggest that in addition to the efficiency and effectiveness of the judiciary, the goals of this Objective include its independence in decision-making, as one of the priorities of the Justice Reform and the legitimate expectations of the public from the latter. We also suggest that, in relation to this objective, the expected outcomes be reviewed, both in the way they are formulated (i.e., to use the most appropriate language for the outcomes, as most of them look like measures), and the connection that they have with Objective 2.4. (because not all outcomes are in fulfillment of the objective and some are more suitable for Objective 1.3). We consider that it is necessary for this objective to be supplemented with additional measures that meet the outcomes listed as expected in the context of this objective. Following this, the indicators would be clearly identified as well. Also, it is important in relation to this objective that it includes only Outcomes and Measures that refer to the judiciary and not its governing bodies, which are addressed in the objectives of Policy Goal 1 or the coordination between justice institutions that are addressed in the objectives of Policy Goal 4.