Twinning projects

COMPONENT 3

FOSTERING THE CAPACITY OF THE SCM- APPOINTED COMMISSIONS FOR THE EVALUATION OF THE PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY OF JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS, THE AWARENESS IN THE MAGISTRACY FOR THE EVALUATION CRITERIA AS WELL AS FOR THE SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION PROCESS, AND THE CAPACITY OF THE SCM FOR DECIDING ON COMPLAINTS LODGED AGAINST REGULAR EVALUATIONS OF MAGISTRATES

The mandatory results listed in the Contract are the following:

“Presentation to the SCM of the final report of the Working Group on issues relating to the evaluation of the professional activity of magistrates and, as the case may be, of recommendations and draft proposals for completing/ enhancing the legal/procedural/administrative framework in matters concerning the evaluations.

Enhanced regulatory framework concerning matters relating to the evaluation of the professional activity of magistrates.

Adoption by the SCM of Guidelines for the evaluation of the professional activity of magistrates.

Enhanced professional capacity of the members of the commissions for the yearly evaluation of the magistrates’ professional activity and of the members of the SCM in charge of deciding on complaints of magistrates concerning evaluations

Enhanced awareness in the Magistracy of the evaluation criteria as well as of the scope and objectives of the evaluation process.”
The mandatory results of Component 3 have been achieved.

1.

In accordance with the law, individual evaluations of the professional activity of all magistrates in accordance with the new rules are to be carried out as soon as possible. The process of preparing for this has been promoted during the full course of the Project.

A first important step towards establishing valid evaluation criteria has been the adoption by the SCM of professional profiles for judges and prosecutors towards which the evaluations would have to be oriented. These profiles have been defined on the basis of the comparative law materials introduced into the discussions of the relevant Working Group by this Project.

Further on, the Working Group has elaborated and presented to the SCM a Regulation for the implementation of the evaluation of the professional activity of judges and prosecutors and accompanying Guidelines for a unitary and consistent implementation of the Law and Regulation by the evaluators. Both drafts have been adopted by the Plenum of the SCM in October 2007. The Regulation has been considerably influenced by the input of the RTA in the discussions of the Working Group and by the papers and drafts presented.

The RTA has supported the Working Group by providing relevant comparative law materials, analysis and suggestions. Furthermore, several seminars/workshops have been implemented in support of the activities of the Working Group.

An initial sequenced Workshop was dedicated to an “Analysis of the the current regulatory and procedural/administrative framework concerning the yearly evaluation of the magistrates’ professional activity and of the procedures for complaints concerning the content of the evaluations”. The aim of the Workshop (activity I.3.1) was to jointly analyse the existing regulatory and procedural/administrative framework concerning the periodical evaluation of the magistrates’ professional activity and of the procedures for complaints concerning the content of the evaluations. The workshop was continued by the discussions of the Working Group which took into consideration the results of the joint analysis and discussions with the STEs with regard to the elaboration of the Regulation and Guidelines on evaluation. For an analysis of the problems and a draft amendment aimed at providing a feasible solution, presented by the RTA, (see Annex 1, Quarterly Report no 4).

The efforts of the Working group were also fostered by way of the Seminar on “Comparative case studies on the scope and limits of the administrative and judicial review of evaluations” for Members of the SCM, judges and prosecutors, inspectors from the Judicial Inspection and staff members of the human resources unit of the SCM. The aim of the seminar was to foster the awareness on the part of the participants with regard to the legal principles and practical aspects governing this area in some other EU Member States. The matter needed urgent clarification, materially and procedurally, also in the Law on the Statute of Magistrates (304/2004 as amended in 2005), if the Sections of the SCM are to be shielded from what otherwise could proof to be an insurmountable number of appeals against individual evaluations. For an analysis of the problem and a draft amendment aimed at providing a feasible solution, presented by the RTA, (see Annex 1, Quarterly Report no 4).

Moreover, a seminar on “Equal application of relevant criteria and standards in the process of evaluating the professional activity of magistrates” for Members of the SCM, Members of the Evaluation-Commissions, members of the working group charged with elaborating General Guidelines for the yearly evaluation of the magistrates’ professional activity and representatives of magistrates’ associations, was implemented. The objective of the seminar was to familiarize the participants with methods applied in other EU-countries for guaranteeing an equal application of evaluation criteria and equal standards for evaluation markings. The result of the presentations of the STEs and of the ensuing discussions have stimulated the efforts of the Working Group aimed at assuring unitary evaluations through regulatory provisions and guidelines suitable to that end.

2.

The objective of elaborating feasible and efficient regulatory provisions and according Guidelines on evaluation has been severely hampered by a number of provisions in the Law, some of which have already been discussed in more detail above in the Chapter on Policy developments. Taking into account also the results of the discussions in the Working Group with the foreign STEs, the RTA has elaborated an extensive analysis of the feasibility of the current provisions on evaluations and complaints with regard to evaluations in Law 303/2004 and formulated draft legislative amendments aimed at resolving the stated problems. The analysis and two alternative draft legislative proposals of the RTA were presented to the SCM and – in June 2007 – also to the Minister of Justice. (For more details, Please, see Annex 1A RO, 1B EN, 1B RO, 1C EN, 1C RO, 1D EN, 1D RO, 1E EN and 1E RO to QR 4 ). These papers have been discussed in meetings at the SCM in which all stakeholders were represented, including the Ministry of Justice. Expectations that the Ministry of Justice would undertake concrete steps for solving this impasse by way of promoting according legislative amendments have not been met.

3.

The professional capacity of the presidents of courts and leading prosecutors as “born” members of the commissions for the evaluation of the magistrates’ professional activity has been enhanced by way of an extended series of countrywide altogether 20 seminars on “Evaluating the professional activity of judges and prosecutors”.

According to Law 303/2004 on the Statute of Magistrates - in the form of the amendments of 2005 - the evaluations are to be carried out by commissions of 3 judges established at each individual court, respectively, by commissions of 3 prosecutors established at each prosecutor’s office. The law provides that the President, respectively the Head of the Prosecutor’s Office, is a born member of the Commission, whilst the other two members shall be elected by the General Assembly of the court/prosecutors office.

Taking into account the fact, that the other members of the Commissions had not yet been elected until the closing phase of the Project, the seminars were directed at the leading magistrates of courts and prosecutors offices, since their active participation in the evaluations could be presumed as certain. The activity was implemented by way of altogether 20 seminars at 10 different locations, one in the morning of each working day for judges and one in the afternoon of each working day for prosecutors, or vice versa, with the Twinning team and experts moving onward in the evening hours towards the next location. The seminars were organized in Craiova, Targu Jiu, Deva, Cluj, Sighisoara, Suceava, Bacau, Focsani, Slobozia and Bucuresti.

The Seminars were aimed at fostering the uniform and consistent application of the criteria and procedures for evaluating the professional activity of prosecutors in accordance with the law and the Regulation and Guidelines adopted by the SCM. To that end, the STEs shared with their Romanian colleagues their own experience in the comparable activity of evaluating the professional activity of magistrates in their respective home-countries, highlighting problems that may come up in the process of evaluation. The RTA, on his part, presented and discussed certain problems deriving from the current legislation and according Regulation which need special attention and may significantly complicate the process.

The seminars fostered the awareness of the participants for the need of a uniform and consistent application of evaluation-criteria and (marking-) standards in the process of evaluating the professional activity of magistrates and for major problems and pitfalls that may be encountered in that process. They met with great interest and engagement on the part of the participants, many of whom voiced serious concerns with regard to the feasibility and viability of the legal framework to be applied.

Altogether more than 300 leading judges and prosecutors from all 15 court of appeal districts participated in the seminars and animated discussions on the complex subject matter.

4.

Taking into account the role of Presidents of courts and of Leading Prosecutors as “multiplicators”, there can be no doubt that the aforementioned countrywide series of seminars on the new evaluations will also have enhanced awareness of the new evaluation criteria as well as of the scope and objectives of the evaluation process in the Magistracy at large. Apart from this, it must be emphasised that all magistrates have had the opportunity to involve themselves in the process of developing the Regulation and Guidelines, since the drafts have been communicated in the system with a request for comments and observations. These observations were then considered by the Working Group which, repeatedly, invited magistrates from the country to its sessions.

5.

The professional activity of the members of the SCM in charge of deciding on complaints of magistrates concerning evaluations has been enhanced by way of the seminar on “Comparative case studies on the scope and limits of the administrative and judicial review of evaluations”. The aim of the seminar was to foster the awareness on the part of the participants with regard to the legal principles and practical aspects governing this area in some other EU Member States. The matter needs urgent clarification, materially and procedurally, also in the Law on the Statute of Magistrates (304/2004 as amended in 2005), if the Sections of the SCM are to be shielded from what otherwise could proof to be an insurmountable number of appeals against individual evaluations. For an analysis of the problem and a draft amendment aimed at providing a feasible solution, presented by the RTA, (see Annex 1, Quarterly Report no 4).

Also the seminar on “Equal application of relevant criteria and standards in the process of evaluating the professional activity of magistrates” has been particularly useful for the Members of the SCM in charge of deciding on complaints of magistrates concerning evaluations, since, on the one hand, they will have to ensure the application of equal standards within their own jurisprudence and since, on the other hand, their jurisprudence will provide orientation to the evaluators in exerting their task.

COMPONENT 4

FOSTERING THE CAPACITY OF THE SCM AS THE BODY IN CHARGE OF PROMOTING MAGISTRATES TO HIGHER OFFICE AND LEADING POSITIONS AND AS BODY IN CHARGE OF DISMISSING MAGISTRATES FROM OFFICE AND REVOKING MAGISTRATES FROM LEADING POSITIONS

The mandatory results listed in the Contract are the following:

“Adoption by the SCM of the final report of the working group and, as the case may be, of any recommendations the working group may put forward in the report.

Enhanced regulatory framework, especially with regard to the applicable criteria, and enhanced decisional and administrative capacity of the SCM in all matters relating to promoting magistrates to higher office and leading positions, dismissing magistrates for other than disciplinary reasons and revoking magistrates from leading positions.”

The mandatory results of Component 4 have been achieved within certain constraints resulting from the law.

1. Promotion
The current Law on the Statute of Judges and Prosecutors, as amended in mid 2005, provides that “Judges and prosecutors shall be promoted only by means of a competitive examination held at a national level…“ and that only judges and prosecutors “who have received the reading very good in the last evaluation” and who meet certain minimum requirements of length of service may sit for the examination of promotion to immediately superior courts or prosecutor's offices (Art. 44 – 1). The examination for promotion consists of written tests, of theoretical and practical nature (Art. 46 – 1). The examination shall be held “by the Superior Council of the Magistracy, through the National Institute for Magistrates” (Art. 43 - 2).
Likewise, the “Appointment to offices of leadership” at courts and prosecutors offices – that is the promotion to an office of (Vice-)President of a court or (Deputy-)Head of a prosecutors office - is possible only through an examination “by the Superior Council of the Magistracy, through the National Institute for Magistrates” (Art. 48 – 1). Again, a “very good” in the last evaluation is one of the preconditions for entering the contest which “consists of the presentation of a project on the exercise of duties that are specific of the office of leadership and of written tests on management, communication, human resources, the candidate’s ability to make decisions and to assume responsibility, his resistance to stress and of a psychological test” (Art. 48 - 4).

The examinations are carried out by examination boards whose members are appointed by the SCM „at the proposal of the National Institute for Magistrates” (Art. 43 – 3). The date, the place, as well as the Regulation on the holding of this examination elaborated by the National Institute for Magistrates shall be approved by the Superior Council of the Magistracy and posted on, inter alia, the web pages of the Superior Council of the Magistracy. The Superior Council of the Magistracy shall validate the result of the examinations.

As evolves from the cited provisions, the role of the SCM with regard to promotions is limited to facilitating the implementation of the examinations and – to a lesser extent – to supervising them for any irregularities, whilst the exams themselves, especially the specific content of what is being examined and the level of demands on the candidates are determined by the NIM and the examination boards.
The internal regulatory provisions needed for carrying out these administrative attributions are all in place. Also, on advice of the administrative experts of this Project, all pertinent administrative tasks have meanwhile been concentrated and assigned to an administrative unit of the SCM which specialises in these matters. They appear to go smoothly, notwithstanding the fact that, every year, hundreds of candidates participate in the examinations. Administrative questions with regard to implementing the procedures currently provided in the law have also repeatedly been the subject of assessment and suggestions within the activities of the Administrative Workshops.
It should be pointed out in this context, that the “Appointment to offices of leadership” is restricted to a 3-year mandate. The mandate is renewable only once and only via renewed and successful participation of the officeholder in the general competitive examination (Art. 48 – 8). In practice, this solution – singular and exceptional in the European Union – means, that in any given three year period ca. 1.200 offices of leadership are to be (re-)attributed through competitive exams. It also means, that the officeholders have to leave office and move on to another position in the system before they may have been able to fully adapt to it. Apart from such considerations of continuity and experience-gathering, this system obviously puts exceptional strain on the institutions concerned with the examinations and the procedure of appointment for the successful candidates.
The enormous number of potential changes in Leading Positions also strongly impedes foresighted personnel planning as an indispensable instrument for securing the effectiveness of the system and of a fair distribution of work burdens. According to Art. 51 (1), as amended in 2005, “Upon cessation of their mandate of leadership, judges or prosecutors may hold, according to Article 48, Article 48¹ and Article 49, an office of leadership with the same court or the same prosecutor's office or with another court or prosecutor's office or may return to the courts or prosecutor's offices where they come from or to a court or prosecutor's office where they are entitled to work, according to the law.” Since it cannot be predicted who will have to move onward to another position and where he/she will decide to move, and since it cannot be predicted who will move from where to fill the open position – leaving his/her own position open and to be filled, and so on … , the personnel carousel according to Art. 48 (8) Art. 51 (1) has a potential for destabilizing the whole system.

Of course, concerns in the area of promotions must go beyond the objective of coping with the mere administrative challenges.

As has been discussed in all pertinent Project activities, the current system of promotions, shaped through the amendments of 2005 and, as such, absolutely singular and exceptional in the European Union - has many fault lines beyond the aforementioned aspect. It, may be, offers the potentially highest possible degree of transparency. But, that, obviously, cannot be an end in itself. The genuine interest of the system – and, indeed, the vital interest of the general public - is a procedure that assures to the highest degree possible, that the candidate personally and professionally best capable for the position in question will evolve from the competition as the frontrunner. Evidently, that cannot be guaranteed by a system which relies merely on an exam which focuses on testing again and again theoretical knowledge but does not allow considering whether at all, and if so, in what ways and measure the professional path, performance and experience of candidates predestines them for the specific office in question – which, for instance, can be the outstanding and highly demanding position of a President of an important Court of Appeal - and in what measure different candidates for that position may differ with regard to the essential requirements for effectively exerting the position.
The latter concerns have been addressed through several pertinent activities of the Project.
Initially, a Workshop “Analysis of the regulatory framework relating to promoting magistrates to higher office and leading positions, dismissing magistrates for other than disciplinary reasons and revoking magistrates from leading positions” was carried out within the framework of the working-group on promotion issues. The workshop with the participation of 3 STEs enhanced the awareness for the legal and practical problems connected to the current legislative framework concerning promotion and dismissal of magistrates.
The Workshop provided a good basis for corroborating all pertinent issues in the Seminar “How to achieve best choice and fair competition in the process of promoting magistrates to higher office and leading positions – criteria and procedures in a comparative law perspective” for the members of the Working Group on issues concerning promotion pp., members of the SCM and members of Leading Boards at courts and prosecutors offices. During this seminar, the STEs presented the relevant national law and practice in their respective home-country, highlighting problematical aspects of the promotion-procedures by presenting pertinent jurisprudence. Participants were, thus, familiarized with best practice selection principles, criteria and procedures applied in the process of promoting magistrates to higher office and leading positions in the respective partner Member States. They are better prepared to implement the Romanian law and procedure in compliance with the general principles applicable in the field and to successfully pursue best choice solutions. At the same time, the efforts of the Working Group on issues concerning the promotion/dismissal of magistrates and revocation from leading offices were fostered through this activity.

Considering the outstanding importance of the subject matter, the foreign STEs and Romanian participants drafted a joint paper with observations and suggestions that was presented to the SCM. The essential observations and suggestions, based on the contributions of the foreign and Romanian experts and on the ensuing joint discussions of the participants, deserve to be cited here:

1.

Ar trebui verificat, dacă sistemul actual de salarizare si de promovare nu conduce la o falie nedorită în structura resurselor umane. Dacă doar promovarea poate duce la o mărire a indemnizaţiei, acest lucru ar putea, eventual, să-i determine pe magistraţi să tindă spre a promova la o unitate superioară pentru a obţine o indemnizaţie mai mare, chiar dacă de altfel ei ar fi satisfăcuţi de poziţia profesională deţinută şi ar dori să evite eventuala mutare de domiciliu aferentă promovării. În paralel, instanţa/parchetul de la care pleacă magistratul promovat suferă o pierdere în ceea ce priveşte experienţa şi expertiza – nu în cele din urmă privind structurile şi particularităţile locale - pe care le deţinea magistratul.

Promovarea pe loc, respectiv un sistem de salarizare, în care nivelul indemnizaţiei creşte odată cu creşterea vechimii în magistratură ar putea reprezenta o soluţie pentru această problemă. Judecătorii şi procurorii care se identifică, în principiu, cu poziţia actuală, nu ar mai tinde spre o promovare numai din raţiuni financiare.

Trebuie luat în considerare şi faptul că, având în vedere vârsta medie relativ scăzută a judecătorilor şi procurorilor din România – chiar şi la nivelurile superioare – se poate preconiza, în mod concret, că în viitorul apropiat, va apărea un „blocaj al promovărilor”, de largă răspândire şi pe termen lung. În următorii 10 ani sau chiar mai mult, probabil că vor fi foarte puţine posturi pe care se va putea promova. Acest fapt ar putea duce la o nemulţumire considerabilă şi la frustrare. Pentru a contracara această situaţie s-ar putea institui un sistem de salarizare, care să ia în considerare experienţa şi calificarea tot mai mari acumulate pe perioada exercitării funcţiei, precum şi posibilităţile limitate de a promova, indemnizaţia crescând automat odată cu creşterea vechimii în magistratură – de exemplu, din doi în doi ani.

Blocajul preconizat poate duce şi la reducerea drastică a atractivităţii profesiei de judecător sau procuror în rândul celor care debutează în carieră, astfel încât în viitor ar putea fi dificil ca noii magistraţi să fie recrutaţi din rândul celor mai buni absolvenţi ai facultăţilor de drept. Şi în acest sens s-ar putea contracara prin adoptarea unui sistem de salarizare mai atractiv, adaptat situaţiei.

Evoluţia negativă ce se prefigurează în domeniul promovărilor oferă, pe de altă parte, ocazia de a spori importanţa funcţiei de la primul nivel. Nivelul judecătoriei nu va mai fi doar o „staţie de trecere” în drumul spre un post superior mai bine remunerat, ci pentru mulţi judecători şi procurori, dacă nu chiar pentru cei mai mulţi, va reprezenta nivelul la care îşi încep şi, totodată, îşi şi sfârşesc cariera. Nivelul indemnizaţiei va creşte odată cu acumularea calificării şi a experienţei.

Ar trebui verificat, dacă problemele menţionate s-ar putea rezolva prin intermediul promovării pe loc. Acest sistem creează diferite „categorii” de magistraţi la un nivel jurisdicţional şi de aceea ar putea avea repercusiuni negative asupra prestigiului acelora, care fac (încă) parte dintr-o categorie inferioară. Acest aspect pare relevant nu în cele din urmă pentru că promovarea pe loc depinde, conform legislaţiei în vigoare, de trecerea unui examen. S-ar evita această problemă, dacă s-ar adopta un sistem de majorare a indemnizaţiei în funcţie de vechimea în magistratură.

2.

Conform art. 44 alin. 1 şi art. 48 alin. 2 din Legea 303/2004, pot fi promovaţi numai magistraţii care au obţinut la ultima evaluare calificativul “foarte bine”. Însă obţinerea calificativului cel mai bun nu este o bază corespunzătoare pentru a putea participa la examenul de promovare. Ar fi corespunzătoare numai dacă toţi magistraţii ar fi evaluaţi după criterii identice şi absolut obiective, ceea ce nu se întâmplă.

3.

Proba scrisă, obligatorie conform normelor legale, reprezintă numai o imagine de moment şi, prin urmare, nu spune prea multe despre persoana candidatului şi calitatea sa în comparaţie cu contracandidaţii săi.

4.

Probele scrise reprezintă, în sine, într-adevăr, o bază transparentă pentru ocuparea posturilor vacante prin promovare. Aspectul transparenţei nu poate însă să ascundă faptul că testul nu poate reprezenta o bază solidă pentru luarea unei decizii. Transparenţa nu este scopul, ci numai o cerinţă referitoare la procedura de selecţie. Scopul procedurii de selecţie este de a-i alege pe cei mai buni cu ajutorul unor instrumente adecvate. În ceea ce priveşte transparenţa în luarea deciziilor privind promovarea, este foarte important în ce măsură există posibilitatea controlului judiciar al acestor decizii. Posibilitatea controlului judiciar asigură transparenţa şi obiectivitatea procedurii.

5.

Sarcina procedurii de promovare trebuie să fie aceea, de a-i identifica pe cei mai potriviţi candidaţi pentru o funcţie superioară. De aceea, proba prevăzută de lege are sens numai dacă vizează cerinţele speciale pe care le presupune exercitarea funcţiei superioare de către candidat.

6.

Pentru luarea unei decizii privind promovarea contează în primul rând dacă respectivul candidat este corespunzător pentru îndeplinirea funcţiei vizate.

Pentru a stabili acest lucru este în special necesar să se cunoască nivelul actual al performanţei fiecărui candidat. În acest sens cel mai important instrument este evaluarea ocazionată de participarea la examenul de promovare. Toţi candidaţii sunt evaluaţi în acelaşi moment şi trebuie să corespundă unor etaloane obiective.

Şi activitatea profesională de până atunci a candidatului poate să indice, dacă acesta corespunde din punct de vedere al pregătirii de specialitate şi personal pentru exercitarea funcţiei pe care doreşte să promoveze. Performanţa înregistrată până la acest moment, experienţa acumulată – eventual pe funcţii diferite, îndeplinind sarcini diverse – spun multe despre personalitatea candidatului şi, din acest motiv, trebuie să fie luate în considerare în procedura de promovare.

Evaluarea comparativă a contracandidaţilor va fi deseori facilitată luând în considerare tipul funcţiilor şi durata exercitării acestora până la momentul respectiv. În funcţie de postul pe care urmează să se promoveze, ar putea să se exprime privind performanţele şi capacităţile evaluatului şi persoane sau entităţi din afara magistraturii, de exemplu avocaţi, adunarea generală a instanţei, respectiv a parchetului, preşedintele instanţei superioare, respectiv conducătorul parchetului superior, la care ar urma să se facă promovarea. Dacă se solicită punctele de vedere ale persoanelor din afara magistraturii, trebuie să se desfăşoare în mod obiectiv şi verificabil. De exemplu, punctul de vedere nu poate proveni de la un singur avocat, ci trebuie să provină de la mai mulţi, sau trebuie obţinut punctul de vedere al Baroului.

7.

Pentru a lua o decizie corespunzătoare cu privire la selecţie este, de asemenea, important, ca din comisia de evaluare să facă parte persoane familiare cu cerinţele actuale impuse de funcţia pe care se va promova, dispunând de experienţă practică într-o astfel de funcţie.

8.

În principiu, şi vechimea în magistratură poate fi considerată un criteriu corespunzător pentru luarea unei decizii, în măsura în care indică prezenţa experienţei într-o măsură considerabilă. Poate fi preferat candidatul cu vechimea mai mare în magistratură, dacă performanţele şi capacităţile contracandidaţilor au fost evaluate la fel în punctele esenţiale.

9.

În privinţa numirilor în funcţiile de conducere, art. 48 alin. 4 din Legea nr. 303/2004 ş.a. prevăd, că concursul constă în prezentarea unui proiect referitor la exercitarea atribuţiilor specifice funcţiei de conducere, precum şi în probe scrise privind managementul, comunicarea, resursele umane, abilitatea candidatului de a lua decizii şi de a-şi asuma răspunderea, rezistenţa la stres şi un test psihologic.

Conform Regulamentului privind promovarea, adoptat de CSM, candidaţii trebuie să prezinte în concurs un plan de management referitor la situaţia instanţei, respectiv a parchetului, la care intenţionează să fie numit în funcţia de conducere. Pentru a garanta egalitatea de şanse şi posibilitatea de a face o comparaţie obiectivă trebuie asigurat, ca toţi candidaţii să pornească de la aceleaşi fapte relevante pentru planul de management în privinţa unităţii vizate. În acest scop nu poate fi suficient, ca aceşti candidaţi să fie îndrumaţi numai spre statisticile disponibile pe internet sau în publicaţiile justiţiei, sau spre a obţine ei înşişi date de la unităţile respective. În cazul concret, datele general disponibile ar putea spune, eventual, prea puţine privind problemele cu adevărat relevante pentru conducerea unităţii respective, iar, în privinţa obţinerii de date în nume personal, rezultatul ar depinde parţial de factori – de exemplu gradul (diferit) al disponibilităţii de a da date manifestată de conducerea în funcţie – asupra cărora candidatul nu ar avea nici un control. În plus, candidaţii din zone mai îndepărtate ar fi defavorizaţi faţă de contracandidaţii provenind din circumscripţia în care se află funcţia vacantă, aceştia cunoscând, de regulă, mai bine situaţia de fapt concretă.

Pentru a evita problemele menţionate, toţi candidaţii ar trebui să primească de la CSM o prezentare unitară, conţinând toate datele relevante pentru managementul respectivei unităţi. Acest lucru se impune, pe de o parte, pentru ca examinatorii să poată porni de la o situaţie unitară, selectând astfel candidatul, care prezintă în planul său de management cea mai bună soluţie pentru problemele efective ale unităţii. Pe de altă parte, este necesar pentru a garanta posibilitatea de a compara prezentările şi, astfel, notarea echitabilă şi obiectivă a diferitelor planuri prezentate.

Prezentarea oferită candidaţilor ar putea fi elaborată de către Inspecţia Judiciară. Odată cu această prezentare, examinatorilor ar trebui să li se pună la dispoziţie şi un model de rezolvare privind planul de management. Numai în acest fel se poate asigura aplicarea unui etalon unitar în cadrul examinării şi notarea corespunzătoare a performanţelor candidatului. Oferirea modelului de rezolvare nu îi împiedică pe examinatori să aprecieze şi să noteze în mod corespunzător soluţiile demne de luat în considerare, sau care reprezintă chiar o îmbunătăţire fată de modelul oferit. Însă, în lipsa unui model de rezolvare, nu există o bază obiectivă suficientă pentru examinare.

Planul de management îşi are rostul numai dacă întemeiază aşteptarea, că acel candidat care va ocupa funcţia îl va transpune ulterior în practică. În funcţie de acest plan se poate evalua ulterior şi modul de exercitare a funcţiei, în special atunci când aceeaşi persoană candidează ulterior pentru aceeaşi sau pentru altă funcţie de conducere.

În măsura în care, conform legii, candidaţii au ca probă rezolvarea unor probleme de management, trebuie să dispună şi examinatorii, din raţiunile expuse anterior, de un model de rezolvare, pentru a permite evaluarea obiectivă şi verificabilă pe cale judiciară a diferitelor prestaţii ale candidaţilor.

10.

În cadrul unei discuţii cu candidatul, membrii comisiei de examinare îşi pot face şi o imagine personală asupra candidaţilor, în privinţa impresiei pe care o lasă persoana, a capacităţii de comunicare, a comportamentului şi manierelor etc. Şi din acest punct de vedere trebuie însă asigurată, pe cât posibil, verificabilitatea evaluărilor referitor la criteriile şi etaloanele de evaluare aplicate.

Proba “prezentării” (= prezentarea proiectului + răspunsul la întrebări) reprezintă o ocazie de analiză a următoarelor dimensiuni comportamentale:

adaptabilitate

flexibilitate

siguranţă de sine

capacitate decizională

tenacitate (scop)

identificare cu funcţia de conducere

mod de conducere orientat spre grup

abilităţi de socializare

ambiţie

creativitate

planificare si organizare

iniţiativă

capacitate de a influenţa

persuasiune

orientare către satisfacerea “clientului”

capacitate de a-i asculta pe cei din jur

abilităţi de comunicare verbala

independenţă

încredere în capacităţile proprii

încredere în sine

prezenţă/ comportament, maniere

energie

rezistenţă la stres

exigenţă

ritm de munca

disciplină

conştiinciozitate

In scopul unei analize unitare a comportamentului managerial al candidatului, dimensiunile (alese) ar trebui descrise printr-o definiţie globala si prin indicatori de comportament.

In cadrul discutiei care urmeaza sustinerii proiectului de management ar trebui analizate probleme obisnuite de management care pot aparea in activitatea instantelor si parchetelor. Ar fi un prilej de analiza a abilitatii candidatului de a reactiona la astfel de probleme intr-o stituatie de stres.

11.

Testul psihologic prevăzut de lege poate fi definit ca fiind procesul de analizare a acelor dimensiuni preponderent de ordin “psihologic”. Observarea acestor „abilitati” poate fi cel mai bine precedata de completarea unor chestionare psihologice (de auto-analiza) referitoare la aceste dimensiuni.

12.

Mandatul de 3 ani pentru funcţiile de conducere, prevăzut în art. 48 alin. 8 din Legea nr. 303/2004, este mult prea scurt. Odată cu deţinătorul funcţiei de conducere se pierde, după 3 ani - respectiv cel mult 6 ani, pentru că, conform legii, mandatul nu poate fi prelungit decât o singură dată – şi experienţa acestuia. Preşedintele cel nou trebuie să acumuleze întâi experienţă în funcţie, să înveţe să aprecieze personalul etc. Se pune în mişcare un circuit, în care fiecare judecător sau procuror poate, respectiv trebuie să ocupe, la un anumit moment, o funcţie de conducere, pentru că altfel, privit pe termen lung, funcţiile de conducere nu mai pot fi ocupate. Aceste probleme sunt evidente în special la instanţele şi parchetele mai mici, şi mai ales în localităţile neatractive pentru candidaţii din afară.

Astfel, normele legislative pot duce fie la imposibilitatea de a ocupa funcţiile vacante din cauza lipsei candidaţilor, fie la selecţia unor candidaţi necorespunzători.

13.

In scopul înlesnirii luării unei decizii transparente, obiective si verificabile privind persoana care urmează să fie promovată şi persoana a cărei candidatură va fi respinsă, toate informaţiile relevante referitoare la contracandidaţii din procedura de promovare trebuie centralizate si apoi comparate, cu obiectivul prezentării unei liste de ierarhizare a candidaţilor, bine fundamentata si in mod convingător motivata.

14.

În afara condiţiei de a avea o vechime de cel puţin 12 ani în magistratură, legea nu conţine nici o dispoziţie referitoare la promovarea pe posturile de judecător la ÎCCJ. Această lacună ar trebui neapărat acoperită printr-o prevedere, conform căreia promovarea la această instanţă să se facă pe baza unor condiţii obiective şi verificabile.

15.

Condiţiile stipulate in art. 51 din Legea 303/2004 privind revocarea judecătorilor si procurorilor din funcţii de conducere nu respecta, in parte, cerinţele elementare referitoare la claritatea legii, ca o condiţie prealabila indispensabila pentru existenta statului de drept si a securităţii juridice. Potrivit art. 51 alin. 2, lit. b) revocarea judecatorilor se dipune de catre Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii, fie la propunerea adunării generale, fie la propunerea preşedintelui instanţei: “în cazul exercitării necorespunzătoare a atribuţiilor manageriale privind organizarea eficientă, comportamentul şi comunicarea, asumarea responsabilităţilor şi aptitudinile manageriale”. Conform art. 51 alin. 7, aceleaşi condiţii se aplica si revocării procurorilor din funcţiile de conducere.

Posibilul domeniu de aplicare a acestor prevederi este atât de vast încât permite justificarea unei intervenţii chiar si pentru o greşeala minoră. Astfel, legea comporta un puternic potenţial de abuz. Chiar dacă acest potenţial nu s-ar materializa niciodată, există sub forma unei permanente ameninţări la adresa magistraţilor care ocupă funcţii de conducere. In afara altor aspecte de ordin juridic, acest lucru este incompatibil cu faptul ca persoanele cu funcţii de conducere de la instanţe sunt, in acelaşi timp, judecători. În teorie, aceştia isi vor exercita mandatul sub o permanenta potenţiala ameninţare ca, oricând după bunul plac, impotriva lor ar putea fi declanşată procedura de revocare din functie. Aceeasi potenţială amenintare exista si in ceea ce priveste impartialitatea procurorilor aflati in functii de conducere.

Din aceste motive, condiţiile stipulate de lege pentru revocarea din functiile de conducere pentru alte cauze decât cele disciplinare ar trebui sa fie redefinite si clar prevăzute în lege, limitând cauzele de revocare la grava neglijenta si la greşeli evidente de management, eliminându-se, astfel, orice forma de abuz.

In acest context, ar trebui avut in vedere faptul ca art. 51, in actuala forma, descurajează magistraţii sa candideze pentru funcţii de conducere. In afara de potenţialul abuz menţionat anterior, situaţia precară a celor cu funcţii de conducere, consecinţă a prevederilor legale, constituie, de asemenea, o ameninţare evidentă la adresa autorităţii lor în relaţie cu ceilalţi magistraţi.

Initial, s-a prevăzut continuarea workshop-ului pentru încă o a treia zi, doar in prezenta participantilor români si a Consilierului Rezident de Twinning. Totusi, aceasta intenţie s-a dovedit dificil de pus in practica datorita angajamentelor profesionale ale membrilor grupului de lucru, care au avut prioritate. Datorita complexităţii temei abordate si a discuţiilor extinse pe marginea problemelor ridicate, timpul limitat avut la dispoziţie nu a fost suficient pentru formularea unor propuneri de modificare a legislaţiei si a regulamentelor. Acest obiectiv va fi urmărit in cadrul activităţilor viitoare ale grupului de lucru.

Much of what has been presented in the Paper has already had an impact on Regulations etc. For the rest, the central issues and problems mentioned are still being discussed and will need further consideration within the Working Groups charged with elaborating a coherent set of legislative proposals for amending the Law.

Apart from the aforementioned joint paper, most of the pertinent problems have also been taken up in the analysis and drafts for amendments presented by the RTA to the SCM and the Ministry of Justice which have been cited above.

2. Revocation from Office

Apart from the provisions in the law regulating the dismissal for health reasons and as a disciplinary measure, which, as such, have no problematic relevance with regard to the notion of “inomavibility” for judges, as stipulated in the Constitution, and the notion of “stability” for prosecutors, the Law on the Statute of Judges and Prosecutors, as amended in 2005, now contains special provisions for revoking magistrates from leading positions. Art. 51 (2) stipulates that revocation of judges from offices of leadership shall be ordained by the Superior Council of the Magistracy, either of office or at the proposal of the general assembly or of the court president, inter alia, “in case of inappropriate exercise of management duties relating to effective organisation, to behaviour and communication, to the assuming of responsibilities and to management skills”. According to Art. 51 (7) “Revocation of prosecutors from leadership shall be ordained by the Superior Council of the Magistracy, either of office or at the proposal of the general assembly or of the head of the prosecutor's office, for the reasons in paragraph (2) which shall apply accordingly.”
These stipulations - which are unique and exceptional in the European Union – have been analyzed and discussed in the Seminar “The concept of “inamovibility” of judges and of “stability” of prosecutors and the dismissal or revocation for other than disciplinary reasons – law, criteria and procedures in a comparative law perspective” for Members of the SCM, Presidents of courts and Prosecutors General, judges and prosecutors from the HCCJ and from different courts and prosecutor’s offices, inspectors from the Judicial Inspection. The Seminar has been implemented with the participation of 2 STEs, one from France and one from Germany. They provided the participants with a comparative law and practice outlook with regard to legal and practical aspects of the concept of “irremovability” of judges and of “stability” of prosecutors, familiarizing them with the pertinent law and practice in their respective home-country and the limitations set by the concepts of “inomavibility” of judges and “stability” for prosecutors with regard to dismissal or revocation from office.
As a result, the participants are now better prepared to implement the relevant Romanian law and procedure in compliance with the general principles applicable in the field within the EU. At the same time, also the efforts of the Working Group on issues concerning the promotion/dismissal of magistrates and revocation from leading offices were fostered through the seminar. The presentations and discussions in the Seminar have indirectly also stimulated the work of the respective Working Group and they will resonate in the ongoing efforts of the Working Groups charged with elaborating a coherent set of legislative proposals for amending the Law.
It should not go without mention that the revocation procedure stipulated in Art. 51 has been strongly and unanimously called into question by the foreign experts – also in the course of other activities relating to the general subject matter - as posing an unacceptable threat to the independence and impartiality of judges and prosecutors in leading positions who are constantly under a potential threat that somebody discontent with a decision they have to take might initiate a revocation procedure against them.

COMPONENT 5

FOSTERING THE CAPACITY OF THE SCM AS GUARANTOR OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF JUSTICE

The mandatory results listed in the Contract are the following:

“Enhanced awareness of members of the SCM and of magistrates for such instances where the independence of justice is endangered or infringed upon by acts of the other state powers, as well as of their capacity to address such situations and to respond to violations of the professional reputation of magistrates in appropriate ways.”

The mandatory result of Component 5 has been achieved.

Art. 133 (1) of the Romanian Constitution stipulates: “The Superior Council of Magistracy shall guarantee the independence of justice.” The Romanian legislator of Law 317/2004 has brought that stipulation to bear by, inter alia, providing in Art. 31 para 1 and para 2 of that Law:

(1) The SCM shall protect the magistrates’ body and its members against any act of nature to touch the independence or the impartiality of the magistrate in carrying out justice or create suspicions in this respect. Moreover, the Superior Council of Magistracy protects the professional reputation of the magistrates.

(2) The magistrate who considers that his/her independence, impartiality or professional reputation is affected in any way may address to the SCM, which, as the case may be, may order the verification of the notified aspects, the publication of the results thereof, may call upon the competent body to decide on the necessary measures or may order any other appropriate measure, according to the law.

These provisions may be considered exemplary in Europe with regard to the scope of protection they allow for. Yet, since there is no comparable precedent in this regard in recent Romanian legal history, the scope and the limits of this new task of the SCM as guarantor of the independence of justice as well as the ways and means of implementing the provisions of Art. 31 para. 1 and para. 2 need to be defined on a case by case basis through the actions and decisions taken by the SCM, be it ex officio or be it upon related requests of magistrates. This process is currently on the way and first results achieved so far have been published by the SCM in a special collection of decisions, disseminated in the judicial system.

The various activities implemented under Component 5 have fostered this ongoing process by enhancing the awareness of members of the SCM and of magistrates for such instances where the independence of justice is endangered or infringed upon by acts of the other state powers, as well as by enhancing their capacity to address such situations and to respond to violations of the professional reputation of magistrates in appropriate ways.
A central activity of the Component was the seminar “Judicial Independence – in what way can it be compromised and how best can it be protected?” for the Members of the SCM, Members of the Inspection attached to the Plenum of the SCM and Judges and prosecutors from different courts of appeal districts. The Seminar provided a comparative law and practice outlook with regard to any situations which can compromise the independence and impartiality of a judge and on the ways and means of protecting judges from any such infringements. To that end, a Romanian expert, Judge-Inspector of the Judicial Inspection attached to the Plenum of the SCM, presented the current state of affairs in Romania with regard to the topic, whilst the two STEs, one from Germany, the other one from France, described the situation in their respective home-country with regard to any inroads for infringements on judicial independence and the safeguards and procedures for protecting judges from any such infringements, referring to landmarks cases in the area. A special focus was also put on possible infringements of judicial independence from within the system, that is, from measures taken by the judicial administration or by the Presidents of Courts or the heads of Prosecutors Offices.
The seminar has been well received by the participants and discussions were lively. In terms of the mandatory results one may, therefore, confidently say, that in accordance with the objectives, the awareness on part of the participants with regard to such instances where judicial independence might be compromised as well as their capacity to address such situations has been enhanced through the comparative law outlook gained in the seminar and the exchange of views with peers from other EU Member States who have special professional competence and experience in this area.

Members of the SCM and of the Inspection have also been provided by the Project with a Romanian translation of a juridical treatise by Dr. U. Joeres, Judge at the German Bundesgerichtshof, on Judicial Independence, as defined in the leading decisions in this area of law by the highest German Court of Law with regard to different aspects of possible infringement. They have also been presented with a full translation of a decision by the Bundesgerichtshof on an issue regarding judicial independence, reiterating essential parameters of relevant jurisprudence in the area. Both documents have, on occasions, also been disseminated beyond the limits of the SCM.

The special situation with regard to the activity of prosecutors has been analyzed in the Workshop “Protecting Objectivity and Impartiality in Public Prosecution” for members of the Council, prosecutor inspectors of the Judicial Inspection attached to the Plenum of the SCM and Prosecutors from all levels of the prosecutorial system. The Workshop provided a comparative law and practice outlook with regard to situations which can compromise the objectivity and impartiality of a prosecutor and on the ways and means of protecting prosecutors from any such infringements. The 3 STEs presented the situation in their respective home-country with regard to any inroads for infringements on the objectivity and impartiality of Public Prosecution and the safeguards and procedures for protecting prosecutors from any such infringements. The seminar has been well received by the participants and discussions were lively. In terms of the mandatory results one may, therefore, confidently say, that in accordance with the objectives, the awareness on part of the participants with regard to such instances where the objectivity and impartiality of a prosecutor can be compromised and with regard to the ways and means of protecting prosecutors from any such infringements have been enhanced through the comparative law outlook gained in the seminar and the exchange of views with peers from other EU Member States who have special professional competence and experience in this area
Within Component 5, special attention has also been given to the role of the SCM as protector of the professional reputation of magistrates, as provided in the above cited Art. 31 of the Law on the Superior Council. Also that provision may be considered as exemplary in a comparative law view. Yet, since there is no comparable precedent in this regard in recent Romanian legal history, the scope and the limits of this new task of the SCM need to be defined on a case by case basis through the actions and decisions taken by the SCM, be it ex officio or be it upon related requests of magistrates. This process is currently on the way and first results achieved so far have been published by the SCM in a special collection of decisions, disseminated in the judicial system. It is a subject, of outstanding concern for Romanian magistrates, many of whom consider their independence infringed upon by public statements in the media, but also from politicians, commenting without much restraint on pending procedures or even attacking individual magistrates, as they would see it, in oppressive ways.

It is against this backdrop, that the – extended - series of altogether 5 seminars on “Protection of the professional reputation of magistracy” for members of the SCM, members of the Judicial Inspection and magistrates from all levels of the judicial system has been met with special interest and commitment on the part of the numerous participants who engaged in lively discussions. The seminars offered an opportunity for the participants to learn about in what ways harshly unjustified criticism of the professional performance of magistrates – be it in the media, by politicians or by citizens involved in juridical procedures – is addressed in Germany and France with the objective of protecting the reputation of individual magistrates, respectively of the magistracy as a whole. They fostered the awareness on part of the participants with regard to the legal implications and the need for carefully chosen ways and means for appropriate and effective response against infringements on the reputation of an individual magistrate or the magistracy as a whole. At the same time, they enhanced the understanding on the part of the participants that the Media have an important role to play in a democracy by observing public institutions and reporting incidents they consider as being out of order and that, therefore, criticism within the bounds of correct presentation of facts and fairness must be accepted. Morover, also the capacity of the participants with regard to defining the often fine line beyond which such criticism in the media or by politicians is unacceptable and must be rejected by the SCM in the interest of individual magistrates or in the interest of the judicial system as a whole has been enhanced.

The Conference “The concepts of separation of powers, checks and balances – what do they hold for justice?” has been implemented as a final highlight of the activities within Component 5 and of the Project as such. It has been organized and implemented with additional support from the Superior Council of Magistrates and from the German Foundation for International Legal Cooperation (IRZ). The 2-day Conference provided a comparative law and practice outlook on the positioning of justice within the triangle of the three state powers and on the areas most vulnerable to friction and infringement with regard to the position of the “3^rd State Power”.

Taking into account the vital importance of the subject matter for all countries in the Balkan-Region and beyond, and with the intention of initiating a wider and constant dialog on questions of common interest between justice-stakeholders in the region, the SCM, with the support of the IRZ, had invited a number of magistrates and law- professors from neighboring Balkan States to attend. Thus, guests from Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia, Moldavia, Montenegro and Serbia attended the Conference at the side of the participating Romanian magistrates and members of the SCM.

A Comparative Law outlook regarding the legal foundations and practical implications of the concepts of separation of powers and checks and balances was presented by the 2 STEs, Prof. Dr. Guenter Hirsch, President of the Bundesgerichtshof, Karlsruhe, Germany, former Judge of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, Luxemburg, and Mme. Christine Berkani, Presiding Judge at the Court of Appeal of Amiens, France, former member of the French Superior Council of Magistrates.

An outlook from different angles on the topic of the Romanian law and practice was presented by Prof. dr. Ioan Vida, President of the Constitutional Court of Romania, Prof. dr. Nicolae Popa, President of the High Court of Cassation and Justice of Romania, Mr. Tudor Chiuariu, Minister of Justice of Romania, Mr. Sergiu Andon, Chairman of the Committee for Legal Affairs of the Romanian House of Representatives, Mr. Gavril Iosif Chiuzbaian, President of the Union of Lawyers of Romania and Prof. dr. Ioan Muraru, the Romanian Ombudsman.

The Conference took place in the Parliament Palace and attracted much Media attention. It was very well received by the participants and discussions were lively. In terms of the mandatory results, one may, therefore, confidently say, that in accordance with the objectives, the awareness of the participants with regard to certain areas of mutual dependency of the 3 State Powers on the one hand and an unrelenting need for preserving and protecting the independence of justice in the interest of the rule of law and a democratic society, on the other hand, has been enhanced. Moreover, as an intended and welcome side effect, a dialogue between important stakeholders in the justice systems in the Balkan Region has been initiated with a prospect of future extension.

In concluding, it must be emphasised, that the mandatory result of Component 5 has not only been supported by the activities within this Component. Many other activities have more or less directly or indirectly related to the same – central – objective of fostering the capacity of the SCM as guarantor of the independence of justice, as, for instance, the Study visit to the German Richterdienstgerichte which are in charge not only of disciplinary matters of magistrates, but also of defending magistrates against infringements of their independence. Equally, the many activities for the Judical Inspection and the additional activity introduced in Working Area III under the heading “Disciplinary responsibility and the notion of “Bad Faith” and “Gross negligence” in administering justice” have had a significant and close connotation with regard to questions of judicial independence, just to name some additional examples. These activities have also contributed to strengthening the respect for judicial independence by reassuring the participants that the relevant lines drawn by the SCM and the Judicial Inspection attached to the Plenum of the SCM are in full compliance with the relevant basic rules and convictions in other Member States.

WORKING AREA NO II: FOSTERING THE ROLE OF THE SUPERIOR COUNCIL OF THE MAGISTRACY AS COORDINATOR OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR MAGISTRACY AND OF THE NATIONAL SCHOOL FOR CLERKS
The mandatory results listed in the Contract are the following:
“Regulatory framework pertaining to the role of the SCM as coordinator of the NIM assessed and enhanced. Administrative structures connecting the activities of the NIM and the SCM enhanced.
Capacity of the Members and the administrative staff of the SCM to successfully exert their tasks and obligations with regard to the NIM enhanced.”

The mandatory results of WORKING AREA NO II have been achieved.

The manifold tasks relating to the co-ordination by the SCM of the National School of the Magistracy (NIM) and of the National School of Clerks (NSC) have been established and defined in various Regulations. These divide up the different attributions between the SCM and its administration, the Scientific Council of the NIM, respectively, the Steering Council of the NSC – both Councils have important attributions within their respective institution - and the leadership of these institutions. For the moment, the existing framework appears to offer a practicable basis for cooperation. Moreover, the assignment of specific tasks and responsibilities regarding the NIM and the NSC to certain staff members of the SCM is an important factor for allowing sound administrative expertise in the area to develop over time.

Yet, taking into account the importance of a successful management of both institutions for the judicial system on the one hand, and the complexity of issues at stake, on the other hand, both institutions may need to be subjected to a thorough review with regard to their current state and future development, on the basis of experiences made so far. This is a task that was not within this Project and which would have overstretched the scope of this Project. Apart from this, a solid vision and according plan for the future development of both institutions would appear to require the prior fulfilment of certain preconditions.

Thus, for instance, for the NSC it appears urgent and indispensable to establish a professional profile of clerks – or, as the case may be, of different categories of auxiliary personnel – with regard to the specific tasks they will have to exert in the system and the aptitudes and educational background required. Only then will it be possible to soundly establish the numbers of auxiliary personnel to be recruited and schooled, to establish an according well focused curriculum for providing them with the skills needed to fulfil their functions, to establish the according number and categories of teaching personnel needed, etc.

The SCM has initiated a court-pilot-program with the aim of gathering a solid basis of data and experiences for defining the clerk-profile. As soon as this endeavour has been successfully completed and a profile, or, as the case may be, differing profiles for different categories of auxiliary personnel have been established, a reassessment will need to be carried out which should include all aspects of future planning for the NSC and allow for a solid development of the school with the objective to providing the system with well trained auxiliary personnel in sufficient numbers.

Taking into account the age pyramid of the magistracy and the immense and potentially destabilizing influence it could have in the years to come with regard to the numbers of new magistrates to be recruited, medium- and long-term planning for the NIM will appear to, first of all, require a thorough assessment of the numbers of auditors to be trained in the years to come. No less important may be a review of the curricula and relating aspects in view of providing auditors with the qualifications required in order to fulfil steeply increasing demands on the performance of the judicial system in accordance with the rapid expansion of Romania’s economy and new developments in society.

The Project has supported the development of the management for both institutions by way of activities which, foremost, were aimed at enhancing the capacity of the stakeholders concerned for thorough and coherent planning for these institutions.

During the Workshop “Coordinating the Administration and Operation of the National Institute of the Magistracy and of the National School for Clerks (organization, human recourses, budgeting etc.)” for members of the SCM, members of the Scientific Council of the NIM, the Director of the NIM and Deputies, members of the staff of the SCM concerned with the co-ordiation of the NIM differing models of administrative interaction between the School on the one hand and the co-ordinating administration on the other hand, as practiced in France and Germany, were presented and discussed, highlighting problematical aspects and methods that have proven advantageous. Thus, the participants got an insight in the interplay and administrative relationship between the School and the hierarchal superior institution in these Member States. As a result, the participants were better prepared for their task of shaping the yet widely uncharted relationship between SCM and NIM.