1. Evaluation of Judges` Performance in the Republic of Croatia - practical experiences -
Second Regional Conference
Montenegro, Budva, November 2016
Damir Kontrec, Judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia and Member of the National Judicial Council

2. Evaluation of Judges` Performance – General Remarks
On a regular basis – every couple of years
As needed – in cases of promotion, election to the position of court president

3. Evaluation of Judges` Performance in Croatia – State of play before 2013
Earlier Law on Courts (OG 150/05, 16/07, 113/08, 153/09, 116/10, 27/11, 57/11, 130/11)
Introduced regular evaluation of all the judges, except for the judges of the Supreme Court, every five years
Evaluation in cases of appointment to the high court and to the position of court president
Court president is authorised to establish whether a judge has fulfilled Framework Criteria (quota) or not
If not fulfilled – obligation to commence disciplinary procedure
If not fulfilled for a justified reason, that was to be specifically indicated in the decision of the court president

4. Evaluation of Judges` Performance in Croatia – State of Play before 2013
When evaluating, the judicial panel was to take into account the following:
quantity, quality, compliance with deadlines, participation in professional development, scientific and professional papers, postgraduate study, mentor, international organisations and missions, participation in making legislation, assignment to work in another court or at the Ministry, participation as a professor at the faculty, participation in activities of the Judicial Academy
Grades – exceptional performance of duty, very successful, successful, satisfactory and unsatisfactory performance of duty
Grade is based on the methodology

5. Evaluation of Judges` Performance in Croatia – State of Play before 2013
Problems that were identified very quickly
Extensive obligations of judicial panels
Lack of uniformity in the work of judicial panels
Too great importance given to the extrajudicial activities of the judge
2011 – two amendments made to the Law on Courts
Regular evaluation was abandoned
Evaluation is carried out only in the process of promotion to the high court and appointment to the position of court president
Importance of extrajudicial activities was diminished in evaluation of the performance of judicial duty

6. 2013 Law on Courts
OG 28/13, 33/15, 82/15, 82/16
Judges are evaluated only in the cases of promotion to the high court, and appointment to the position of court president
Grade for performance is given by the competent judicial panel
Every year, the court president establishes whether the judge has fulfilled framework criteria or not (consequence of the failure to fulfil them results in the commencement of disciplinary procedure)
Art. 97 of the LC sets out the following evaluation criteria
Number of judgments delivered by the judge against the number of judgments he/she should have delivered on the basis of the framework criteria for the performance of judges
Result of performance by the types of cases in absolute numbers and in percentages
Compliance with deadlines
Quality of decisions rendered with regard to legal remedies
Other activities performed by the judge

7. Methodology of Calculating Grade for Judges from 2012
Evaluation period
For judge of the county court, High Commercial Court, administrative and misdemeanour courts – 5 years
For judge of the Supreme Court – 10 years

8. Methodology of Calculating Grade for Judges from 2012
Art. 6 – calculation criteria (criteria referred to in Art. 97 of the LC are reiterated and elaborated)
Art. 7 – manner of calculating performance result – up to 90 points
Art. 8 – manner of calculating compliance with the deadlines – up to 3 points
Art. 9 – quality of performance – up to 20 points
Art. 10 – other activities – additional points if the judge achieved at least 115 points
Maximum number of points that can be achieved is 150

9. Grade given for the Performance of Judicial Duty
Exceptional performance of judicial duty – 130 to 150 points
Very successful performance of judicial duty – 110 to 129 points
Successful performance of judicial duty – 90 to 109 points
Satisfactory performance performance of judicial duty – 70 to 89 points
Unsatisfactory performance of judicial duty – less than 70 points

10. Grade given for the Performance of Judicial Duty
Legal remedy – appeal lodged with a special five-judge panel of the Supreme Court of Croatia
Judges who are members and deputy members of such panel are listed in the Annual Schedule of the Supreme Court

11. Evaluation of Judges and Work of the National Judicial Council (NJC)
Period from 01 March 2015 to 31 October 2016 – new convocation of the NJC
The issue of evaluation of judges` performance was raised in competitions for election to the positions of court presidents and election of judges of second instance courts (only in one case competition for election of 1 judge of the first instance commercial court)

12. Election to the Positions of Court Presidents
In the observed period, a total of 43 competitions for election to the positions of court presidents were published.
A total of 88 candidates
According to the evaluations of judicial panels, candidates to the positions of court presidents were graded as follows:
Exceptional – 83 candidates – %
Very successful – 3 candidates – 3.41 %
Successful – 2 candidates – 2.27 %

13. Election to the Positions of Court Presidents
Out of 82 candidates who were given the highest grade, 48 candidates scored 140 and more points
97.73 % of candidates were evaluated with two highest grades

14. Election to the Positions of Judges
The same observed period from 01 March 2015 to 31 October 2016
24 judicial vacancies in second instance courts
A total of 292 candidates applied for all the competitions

15. Election to the Positions of Judges
Grades of the candidates for judges
Exceptional – 212 candidates – %
Very successful – 78 candidates – %
Successful – 2 candidates – 0.68 %
99.32 % of the candidates were given two highest grades
140 points and more – 54 candidates

16. Special Panel of the SCRH for deciding on appeals against grades given to judges
From 01 January 2014 to 30 September 2016 – a total of 30 appeals were lodged
The reason for such a low number of appeals is the fact that judges, as a rule, were given the highest grades
The following decisions were made
Appeal rejected – 16 cases
Appeal dismissed – 1 case
Appeal accepted – 5 cases
Appeal partly accepted – 3 cases
Resolved in some other way – 5 cases

17. Questions Asked with regard to Evaluation
Does evaluation of the performance of judicial duty have to be predominantly based on the statistical data on the fulfilment of Framework Criteria (quotas for judges)?
Unequal workload of judges in different areas – which has direct impact on statistical results of the performance
Lack of uniformity in application of the Methodology of Evaluation by different judicial panels (at the moment, a total of 18 judicial panels carry out evaluation of the performance of judicial duty)
The fact that judges in smaller courts, working on different types of cases, can more easily fulfil Framework Criteria than the judges in bigger settings
The fact that there has been a decline in the number of cases in first instance courts, which has direct impact on judges ` performance results

18. Questions Asked with regard to Evaluation
Should greater importance be attached to the quality of judges` performance instead of the quantity or how can the optimal balance be struck between quality and quantity of judges` performance?
Is it time for gradual abandonment of the ”judicial quota” concept!?
Is the percentage of grades (exceptional and very successful) exaggerated?
…..

19. Thank you for attention!