Measure 2.1.11
“Development, discussion and approval of the standard rules package related to courts operations”.
This measure states that the HJC will prepare, by the end of 2022, a set of standard rules related to various court administration processes at all levels, starting from the rules for determining the number of courts as well as of judges that will be part of a court (Article 15 and Article 22 of Law 98/2016), the rules for the establishment of sections and trial panels (Article 23 of Law 98/2016), the rules for the program and procedures for assigning cases by lot (Article 25 of Law 98/2016), rules related to the meeting of the Court Council (Article 28 of Law 98/2016), rules on public relations, etc.
This measure only refers to the standard rules, decisions and instructions issued by the HJC, and not to the laws, for the provisions they contain related to the functioning of courts. Therefore, as explained above, this measure partially meets the outcome – only for the part of the secondary legislation.
Regarding the deadline for completing this measure – 2022 – it seems that this deadline is very close, if we take into account the time it took the HJC to produce such acts, the large number of acts that the HJC must develop and their specific. Also, especially in the circumstances when the definition of the new judicial map is the first basic element that will determine the strategy and policy-making of the judiciary in terms of human and infrastructural resources distribution.
This is why the new judicial map was planned to be completed within CJS I (objective 1.04) and the fact it was not, until 2020, makes these measures, as regards the new map, not be realistic even in 2022.
Conclusion: This measure partially fulfills the Outcome, only in relation to the part about secondary legislation (standard rules, decisions and instructions) and not the law, as required by the Outcome. Also, this measure does not guarantee that it will be possible and effective in the foreseen term, if we take into account the experience so far and the large and substantial gap caused by the lack of a new judicial map.