Measure 2.4.5
“Approval and implementation of the new judicial map”.
This measure, pursuant to Law 115/2016, implies the approval of a decision by the Council of Ministers based on the co-proposal of the HJC and the MoJ. One of the most important issues resolved by the High Judicial Council is the determination of the total number of judges needed in the Republic of Albania and the evaluation of the organization of judicial districts and the territorial jurisdiction of the courts, or in other words, the approval of the judicial map. This is a technical-political decision-making with very large effects on the efficiency of the judiciary and access to justice for Albanian citizens.
The approval and implementation of the new judicial map is a necessary measure in order to achieve Outcome 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 and Specific Objective 2.4. The judicial map is one of the most important instruments in ensuring the efficiency and effectiveness of the courts. The challenge in drafting this map, in line with the current needs of the judiciary, lies in finding a reasonable balance between the efficient functioning of the courts and public access. It requires a careful study of the state of the courts, and here we refer to the flow of cases, backlog cases, decisions rendered, number of judges, number of support staff, court infrastructure, budget, etc. On the other hand, in order not to impede access to justice, the population of the existing regions or judicial districts, which may be affected by the reorganization, the economic development trends of each region, should be taken into account; the quality of infrastructure, both rail and motorway, distance and financial costs of transport, access and level of use of information technology, the possibility of benefiting from free legal aid services, etc.
The analysis used to develop the map should also take into account the recent changes made to the Justice Reform package, which affect the jurisdiction of the courts, changed the composition of the judiciary, reducing the number of judges needed before the changes, and changed the trial procedures, moving a large number of cases to the counseling room, which aimed at the efficiency and effectiveness of the judiciary.
This measure was foreseen in Activity 1.04 ‘Reorganization of the judicial and prosecutorial map, as well as other investigative authorities and distribution of courts, in accordance with the new territorial division, population and blocking of court cases, in order to strengthen the role and functioning of the courts and to ensure access to justice’, of Objective 1 (see above) of the CJS I. This measure had also been included in the list of measures implementing Goal 1 “Acceleration of the Judiciary Reform and Resource Allocation”, part of the 2018-2020 HJC Strategic Plan. However, although four years have passed since the adoption of the Reform laws, the map has not yet been approved, despite the discussions that have taken place for its implementation. Provision of this measure is certainly necessary. While it is an immediate process, it seems that involvement in CJS II creates the premise that this process will continue to take time.
This measure remains current as long as it has not yet been approved and is at the stage of a draft proposed by HJC. This measure is also considered necessary in order to optimize human and financial resources, increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the courts, as well as minimize the costs and consequences of the transitional re-evaluation (vetting), without compromising access to justice. In this respect, this measure is necessary to achieve the above-mentioned outcomes 2.4.1 and 2.4.2.
All EU countries that have adopted new judicial maps have faced this challenge. The measure is clearly formulated and creates a natural connection with Measure 2.4.2.
Conclusion: The measure is appropriate to achieve Specific Objective 2.4. It is clearly formulated, and it is current and realistic. The adoption and implementation of the judicial map remains the ‘key’ that guarantees increased efficiency and effectiveness in the first two levels of the judicial system, while maintaining access to the courts intact.