1. How Albania Judiciary measure performance of judges
SUPPORT TO JUDICIAL REFORM IN THE WESTERN BALKANS
16-18 November, 2016
Budva, Montenegro

2. Introduction High Council of Justice.
The first criteria for the judges performance:
The number of cases resolved by the judges within a year.
For the civil judges the number is 220 cases resolved within a year
For the penal cases is 100 cases resolved within a year.
For the judges of the district of the serious crime is 10 cases within a year.
The number of cases resolved by a judge of the appeal court is 200 case within a year

3. The second criteria for the judges performance, the deadline to resolve the cases :
For civil cases with opposing party is 6 months
For family cases is 4 months
For civil request is 3 months
For criminal offense is 2 months
For not difficult penal cases is 6 months
And for the serious crimes is 1 year.

4. The third criteria for the judges performance, the quality of the decision:
For the judge that is evaluated “very good”, the limit of the cases dropped of by the Appeal Court must be no more that 10% of the cases.
For the judge that is evaluated “good”, the limit of the cases dropped of by the Appeal Court must be no more that 20% of the cases.
For the judge that is evaluated “acceptable”, the limit of the cases dropped of by the Appeal Court must be no more that 30% of the cases.
For the judge that is evaluated “incapable”, the limit of the cases dropped of by the Appeal Court must be more that 10% of the cases.

5. The problems in practice according to these criteria
HCJ doesn’t determined how many cases can a judge has to resolve in the same time
There is no an official model for the way how to formulate a decision.

6. Evaluation Process
According to Article 2 (3) of Decision 261/2, the evaluation process has three stages:
The evaluation of the president of the court where the evaluated judge performs his or her duties (Article 19) followed by a voluntary self-evaluation of the judge (Article 20).
A report of the evaluation and a draft evaluation by the Inspectorate of the HCJ
The final evaluation decision by the HCJ (Article 32).

7. Criteria
According to the Law, three sets of evaluation criteria must be distinguished:
Section I : The set of general professional, organization and execution skills;
Section II : The set of judicial and technical professional abilities
Section III : The set of human skills and professional engagement.

8. Judicial and technical professional abilities
In this section, it must be assessed:
If the judge is able to draft clear decisions.
The evaluated judge’s ability to manage a fair legal process.
the judge’s competence to set up and organize a judicial file in a way that makes it readily usable.

9. Scoring criteria
The relevant score is allocated according to the following criteria:
50% experiences, seniority, up to 100 points can be achieved: Three points are allocated for each year of professional experience as a judge, which add up to a maximum score of 80 points. Two additional points are assigned for each year of professional experience as a judge in the court of appeal, which add up to a maximum score of 20 points.
40% evaluation results, up to 80 points can be reached. 80 points are assigned if a judge receives an evaluation of “very good” in all three categories. The evaluated judge receives 60 points for an overall evaluation of “very good”.
10% scientific and academic activity, up to 20 points can be achieved.

10. Thank You..