Outcome 2.4.2
“Establishment and Implementation of Judicial Excellence Standards for the implementation of best human resource management practices at all levels of the judiciary, focusing on standards to ensure judicial excellence.”
This outcome is related to the concept of efficiency in human resource management. The efficiency of a system is inextricably linked to costs. A system, including the judiciary, is considered to increase its efficiency if with the same resources, but properly managed, it yields a higher result or maintains efficiency with even fewer human resources.
In view of Objective 2.4 aiming at an effective and efficient judiciary, the expected outcome will be a system that efficiently and effectively manages resources of all natures, including human. In this respect, Outcome 2.4.2 complies with Objective 2.4.
This outcome is also current. The vacancies that the application of the vetting process brings to courts, and the limited inflows from the School of Magistrates, at least for the years when CJS II will apply, require an efficient management of human resources. In this regard, an optimal and appropriate reallocation of human resources, within the judicial system, would make the judicial system more efficient.
Although “Ensuring adequate resources for the implementation of judicial reform, including infrastructure and judicial staff” and “approving the judicial map” was one of the main objectives of the 2019-2020 HJC Strategic Plan, it still remains unfulfilled.
The outcome in itself does not fully and alone meet the efficiency objective, but it is one of the outcomes that necessarily comes in its fulfillment and aims at human resource management, at all levels of the judiciary, in line with European standards in the field. This outcome can be merged with the first outcome, as the completion of staff together with the optimal management of human resources bring about a functional and efficient system.
To measure this outcome, we could make use of the indicators that measure in their entirety the efficiency of the judiciary, the indicators proposed in Outcome 2.4.1, as well as the “number of court administrative staff per one judge“, which, compared to the European average as processed by CEPEJ, would give us data on the implementation of European best practices.
Conclusion: This outcome is in line with Objective 2.4. It addresses the current needs of the system and is realistic. We suggest merging it with Outcome 2.4.1. In addition to the proposed indicators for Outcome 2.4.1, we suggest adding “number of court administrative staff per judge”.