Twinning projects
Yüklə 0,5 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Section 1: Project data Section 2: Content
- Project Assumptions 2B ACHIEVEMENT OF MANDATORY RESULTS
- 2C ACTIVITIES IN THE REPORTING PERIOD WORKING AREA NO I
- FURTHER ACTIVITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TWINNING PROJECT
- Recuperation of delays 2E ASSESSMENT
- Recommendations Section 3: Expenditures
- Policy Developments 1.
|
TWINNING PROJECT FINAL REPORT Project Title: Twinning Arrangements for the Superior Council of the Magistracy Partners: Romania - Germany Date: ___________ Twinning Contract number: RO2004/016-772.01.04, RO 2004/IB/JHA-01
Section 1: Project data
Section 2: Content 2A – BACKGROUND The end of the implementation period of this Twinning Project on the 30th November 2007 marks the completion of a close and fruitful cooperation between the German and Romanian partners in support of Justice Reform in Romania, spanning over the duration of two consecutive Twinning Projects aimed at strengthening the functioning of the Romanian judiciary and its representative body – the Superior Council of the Magistracy. The purpose of the initial project – implemented from mid September 2003 to mid September 2005 - was to contribute to devising and establishing a legal and administrative structure that would guarantee the independence of the Romanian judiciary and improve the operation of the Romanian judicial system. To that end, nearly 30 experts from Germany and five other EU Member States assisted in the process of redefining and strengthening the role of the Romanian Superior Council of Magistrates (SCM) and in enhancing the Council’s institutional capacity and operational performance in accordance with best practice in the EU Member States and with regard to its much extended competences according to the Justice Reform Laws, namely the Law on the Statute of Magistrates, the Law on the Organization of Justice and the Law on the Superior Council of Magistracy – all introduced in mid 2004 and all fundamentally amended in mid 2005. Awareness in the magistracy of the important changes in the judicial system and legislative/regulative framework was fostered by way of informative meetings and discussions with magistrates in all appeal court and prosecutor's offices districts of Romania. Apart from the activities carried out by the Pre-Accession Adviser in order to offer the necessary assistance for drafting relevant laws and regulations, numerous workshops/ seminars were carried out, covering all essential aspects of judicial administration, as for instance, concerning workload schemes, personnel planning and personnel development, evaluation of the professional activity of magistrates, deontology and justice - mass media relations. Nearly 2300 judges and prosecutors participated in altogether 44 meetings at courts and prosecutor's offices all over Romania, and another 330 magistrates attended seminars and workshops in Bucharest. The seminars and workshops were linked to the activities of working groups set up by the Council and charged with drafting regulations and other relevant working instruments in the according fields of activity. The institutional strengthening of the Council was fostered also by way of organizational analyses and proposals of German justice administration experts. Leading members of the staff of the Superior Council of the Magistracy were on internships in judicial administrations of EU Member States, working in units connected to their tasks in the Council. Last, but not least, an on-hand legal library for the Council was financed out of the project. The overall objective of this subsequent Twinning Project was to strengthen the independence of the judicial system in Romania. To that end, the project was devised to provide the Superior Council of Magistrates (SCM) - Guarantor of the Independence of Justice, according to Art. 126 of the Constitution - with a fine-tuned regulatory framework and professionally trained staff and members in all essential fields of activity. Accordingly, the activities – seminars, workshops, internships and study tours - concentrated on
In pursuing these objectives, the Twinning Partners have carried out altogether 99 Seminars and Workshops of between 1 day (as an exception) and one week duration in not quite 20 months of project implementation - some of these activities having been added to the original Work plan in response to urgent need coming up in the course of the project - , apart from extended activities in Working Groups, which were dedicated to the above mentioned subjects, and ad hoc advisory activities in supporting the SCM. Moreover, altogether 13 interns were given the opportunity to work side to side with their peers in the justice administration of some of Romania’s EU partner states. Two study visits offered the participants to familiarize themselves with the activities of Member State Judicial Inspections, respectively, the activities of the special disciplinary law-courts for magistrates in Germany. Attendance in the seminars and workshops of the second Twinning Project amounted to altogether almost 2.900 magistrates and administrative personnel, bringing the total number of participants in the two consecutive Twinning Projects to over 5.500. The Twinning Partners took special pride in the fact, that their Project was a truly European one. The foreign magistrates and administrative experts involved in implementing the activities of both Romanian/German Twinning Projects came from altogether 9 EU partner states. They all cooperated in a joint effort of supporting their Romanian peers in pursuing their ambitious objectives within the framework of Romanian Justice Reform and, at the same time, reassured the Romanian colleagues of the fact that they were all part of a European community that adheres to the same values and principles, notwithstanding sometimes differing ways and methods in pursuing these same values and principles. Doubtlessly, the smooth and successful implementation of a work plan as dense and demanding would not have been possible without the full and steadfast backing and support the Project and the RTA enjoyed at all times from the leadership of the SCM and from the administration of the SCM. Equally important has been the openness and receptiveness on the part of the Romanian magistrates and administrative personnel who participated in the activities of the Project. Policy Developments 1. Starting in the final phase leading up to the accession of Romania to the European Union, ca. 9 months ahead of the decisive date of January 1rst of 2007, and continuing for another 11 months into the post-accession era, this Project has been embedded in a continuously dynamic - if not always straight forward moving - political process of Justice Reform in Romania. In fact, apart from the joy and satisfaction about Romania’s entry in the European Union on the part of all involved in the Project, the accession date marked no perceptible change of environment for the Project. In fact, the dedication and resolve on the part of the Superior Council of Magistracy and its administrative staff to fulfil the benchmarks set for the Council in the Updated Action Plan, to further improve and stabilise the administrative structures of the Council and to foster the functioning of the judicial system as a whole, was no less vigorous after accession than it had been before. There was – and continues to be - a general awareness, that justice reform is a long-term process needing continuous efforts and further consolidation. Accordingly, the SCM was very receptive for any support the Project could offer and, on its part, co-operated closely with the Project in a joint effort of making most effective use of project activities. What has been said about the Council and its administration applies in equal measure to the Romanian magistracy at large. It is only fair to draw special attention to the sincerity and openness, combined with an avid desire for raising standards of professional performance that was so characteristic for the more than 2.500 magistrates who took part in the seminars and workshops between April 2006 and November 2007. This constructive attitude has won them great respect and appreciation from their peers from other EU Member States involved in the activities as Short Time Experts. Unfortunately, this constructive attitude was not always encouraged from outside the Magistracy. Positive effects of the manifold efforts undertaken to promote a realistic and truthful picture of the Justice System – including its true shortcomings and problems - were at times –offset by demeaning remarks in public, picturing the magistracy as corrupt and incompetent. This has had negative effects not only with regard to the reputation of the Magistracy as a whole, but it also has a discouraging effect on the very large majority of magistrates who, on a daily basis, genuinely strive to give their best. Apart from this, wholesale and simplistic accusations insinuating that the magistrates themselves are at the root of all woes of the Justice System have, at times, distracted the view from the real problems and, as a consequence, obstructed the access to these problems and to measures suitable and necessary for solving them. They also hinder the much needed growth of public trust without which the magistracy cannot fulfil its role effectively. Therefore, a more focused discussion on well defined facts and individual problems would certainly be in everybody’s interest. In particular, it appears as dangerously simplistic and misleading to suggest that the core problem of the Romanian Justice System is corruption and, hence, that by way of eliminating a - presumed - general disposition for corruption all problems of the justice system shall be cured. It is equally false to suggest, that, for the rest, everything necessary for delivering quality performance is in place and that it is now up to the magistrates to deliver that quality or, else, to face disciplinary sanctioning and civil responsibility. Allegations of widespread corruption in justice continue to be discussed in public as if widespread corruption in justice was an irrefutable given. Yet, at the same time, nobody seems to be able to give concrete and convincing reasons, which would allow pinpointing the true factual extend of the problem beyond the relatively small number of cases investigated. Asked for factual circumstances, the standard answer is that courts give decisions that are simply not understandable against the background of pertinent facts, that they interpret and apply the law arbitrarily, and that the only logical explanation for such incidents is corruption. Evidently, such assertions are, first of all, subjective, and it should not be ignored in this context, that there is no way to make both parties happy with a judgement. There is always one discontented looser. The party or lawyer who won a case will certainly see that result differently from the party or lawyer who lost it. In so far, there is no difference between Romania and any other country. The decisive difference is that there are other countries where a party would be just as much convinced that she lost wrongly, but would never attribute this to corruption, but to a misunderstanding or a mistake of the judge. The discrepancy originates in the different degrees of general trust citizens in different countries have in their magistracy, which, again, depends in large measure on how the magistracy is treated by the other powers, politicians and the media, since only few citizens will have personal and repeated experience with the justice system. And it depends in no lesser measure on how informed the public and the public discussion is. Apart from this, whether decisions are evidently false or certain interpretations of the law evidently untenable is nothing that can be clarified in public debates and talk-shows. Instead, any concrete assertion of the kind would have to be analysed on a case by case basis apart from the principle that this should, first of all, be left to the institution that, according to the law and Constitution is charged with and professionally qualified for the review of judicial decisions, namely the higher court. Even assuming, that there were individual cases where the unproven suspicion of corruption applies, it must be emphasised, that this problem will never be solved by disciplinary measures or an extended civil responsibility of magistrates. Evidently, disciplinary measures are no means at all for fostering a unitary and consistent interpretation and application of the law. Therefore, as long as there are no mechanisms for effectively fostering unitary jurisprudence – starting with providing (procedural- and workload-) conditions which would allow the High Court of Cassation and Justice to truly exert the task of providing a unitary interpretation and implementation of the law by the other courts of law as is stipulated in Art. 123 (3) of the Romanian Constitution – strongly divergent jurisprudence will continue to exist and, hence, will continue to give rise to widespread suspicion of corruption. In view of the public discussion, it may be considered an irony that the demand for a more unitary and consistent jurisprudence is nowhere more adamant than from within the judicial system itself. Judges and prosecutors alike are only too aware of the scale and consequences of the problem. Their concerns and discontent with the current situation have again and again been voiced in the seminars, workshops and other meetings within this Project. Apart from the impediment it poses to the rule of law, they clearly see it as a major source for the lack of confidence in the Justice System. If anybody, it is them who want this problem solved. Also, the SCM is fully aware of the problem. It has made strong efforts to ease the problem by implementing meetings at courts and prosecutors offices in an attempt to discuss certain questions of law with the objective to develop and foster a unitary position of the magistrates on these questions of law. Yet, such efforts of the SCM, whilst certainly easing the problem in a limited number of cases, evidently can never solve the problem. Quite apart, it must be stressed that, for obvious reasons, it is not and cannot be the role of the SCM to provide for a unitary interpretation of the law. To expect that the SCM solve the problem is, therefore, clearly misguided under all pertinent aspects. What has been said with regard to corruption, applies equally to the purported lack of qualification of magistrates. Doubtlessly, a need for further qualification – in particular, with regard to new challenges in the European Union context - cannot be denied, even if it that need may strongly differ from one area of law to another. Yet, evidently, this need cannot be satisfied by way of disciplinary sanctioning of magistrates and/or by applying rigid rules of civil responsibility, as is sometimes suggested to the general public. Again, judges and prosecutors alike are fully aware of the scale of the problem, which can only be addressed by offering according continuous training. Also in this regard, the SCM fosters the activities of the NIM and, in particular, forms of decentralized continuous training at courts and prosecutor’s offices in the country. It is to be hoped for, that public discussion with regard to the Magistracy, the Superior Council of Magistracy and Justice Reform will gradually get less emotional and more informed. In this respect, developments in 2007 may be considered somewhat more encouraging in comparison to the situation in 2005 and 2006. Yüklə 0,5 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|