The three most important bodies for the governing of the new justice system, the High Judicial Council, the High Prosecutorial Council, and the High Justice Inspector during 2023 were faced with a series of challenges that weakened their effectiveness. These challenges were partially related also to the vacancies that the judicial and prosecutorial systems are being faced with. Nevertheless, concrete and more publicly considerable efforts are need to strengthen the integrity, effectiveness, transparency, and accountability of these institutions.
Some of the encountered problems are similar for the monitored institutions.
“In the administration of the career of judges, the HJC was affected by several factors, such as: implementation of the new judicial map for the distribution of judges from the dissolved courts and the filling of vacancies created in the system as a result of the vetting process. It is worth emphasizing that the governing bodies of the judicial system themselves, such as the HJI, are faced with vacancies in their staffing that operates with deficiencies of inspectors,” says AHC’s report on the High Judicial Council.
On the other hand, AHC says that based on some of the visits in the prosecution offices of general jurisdiction, even six years after the functioning of the new governing institutions of the justice system, the latter is still in “abnormal” working conditions, as a result of the high number of vacancies and the disturbing backlog of cases.
Among the main aspects for which the AHC seeks increased and immediate attention is the improvement of the transparency of the Councils.
AHC recommends that the High Prosecutorial Council needs to approve the necessary mechanisms that strengthen the internal integrity of its members and prevent potential cases of conflict of interest or influences that may be perceived as corporatistic and with elements of nepotism in the prosecution system.
The report on the activity of the HJC states, “The standards of transparency and effectiveness have been highlighted as problematic in the decision-making on temporary transfers and those with dedicated consent, as well as in decisions for the assignment of judges to special cases, due to the lack of detailed reasoning on the manner in which the legal criteria are fulfilled by the candidates.”
Regarding the disciplinary proceedings on prosecutor and judge magistrates, they are scarce when compared to the total number of complaints that the HJI has administered and verified during 2023.
The HJI has had to administer 2340 complaints, including those carried over from the previous year, and has initiated 18 disciplinary proceedings during 2023. During this year, there was no decision by the HJC, whether to issue disciplinary measures on the judges, or for the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. The dragging out of disciplinary proceedings in the HJC toward judges remains problematic, due to repeated absences of judges who are the subjects of these proceedings.
AHC considers that the HJC should publish the process-verbals and administrative acts for the disciplinary proceedings in a rubric dedicated exclusively to disciplinary proceedings, so that the users of the website are as guided as possible in finding information.”
On the other hand, the HPC has issued two disciplinary measures “Dismissal from office” for two prosecutors who were declared guilty of a criminal offense and has suspended two other prosecutors due to criminal and administrative (vetting) processes toward them. The reason for assigning these measures has to do with the existence of a final judicial ruling, or a personal security measure, and not with any of the other causes that lead to the emergence of disciplinary liability.
AHC considers that this trend of disciplinary liability does not meet the objectives on the basis of which these institutions were conceived and created, as pillars of the governing of the justice system, that aimed at preserving a just balance between guaranteeing independence, professionalism, and meritocracy of judges and prosecutors, vis-à-vis the mechanisms that guarantee their accountability and responsibility. Disciplinary proceedings, as AHC has emphasized in its monitoring reports, should not aim at further dismissals from the judicial and prosecutorial system (when violations are not serious).
The full reports on the activity of the HJC, HPC, and HJI were consulted with all three institutions. AHC is a non-profit, independent, monitoring organization. The positions of the monitored institutions were made part of a special annex in each report, in the spirit of transparency toward the public and the constructive dialogue that AHC maintains with institutions.
The full report on the activity of the HJC and HJI for 2023 may be accessed at this link:
The full report on the activity of the HPC and HJI for 2023 may be accessed at this link:
