Opinion no 4 of the CCEJ on appropriate initial and in-service training for judges at national and European levels

[Scroll for English]

= Română =

Strasbourg, 27 noiembrie 2003

CCJE (2003) Aviz nr. 4

Consiliul Consultativ al Judec─âtorilor Europeni (CCJE)

Avizul nr. 4 ( 2003 ) al Consiliului Consultativ al Judec─âtorilor Europeni (CCJE) ├«n aten┼úia Comitetului de Mini┼čtri privind formarea ini┼úial─â ┼či continu─â specifice judec─âtorilor la nivel na┼úional ┼či european

Introducere

1. Ne afl─âm ├«ntr-un moment ├«n care se acord─â o aten┼úie crescut─â rolului ┼či importan┼úei sistemului judiciar, care este v─âzut ca garantul suprem al func┼úion─ârii democratice a institu┼úiilor la nivel na┼úional, european ┼či interna┼úional. Astfel problema form─ârii viitorilor judec─âtori ├«nainte de numirea lor ├«n func┼úie, precum ┼či chestiunea form─ârii lor la locul de munc─â are o importan┼ú─â deosebit─â (a se vedea Avizul CCJE nr. 1 (2001), alineatele 10-13 ┼či Avizul nr. 3 (2002), alineatele 25 ┼či 50, punctul ix) .

2. Independen┼úa sistemului judec─âtoresc confer─â drepturi judec─âtorilor la toate nivelurile, indiferent de competen┼úa teritorial─â, impun├ónd totodat─â ┼či anumite obliga┼úii de ordin etic. Acestea din urm─â includ obliga┼úia de a depune toate diligen┼úele pentru ├«n vederea ├«ndeplinirii atribu┼úiilor judiciare ├«ntr-un mod profesional, ceea ce implic─â faptul c─â trebuie s─â posede calit─â┼úi profesionale dob├óndite, men┼úinute ┼či ├«mbun─ât─â┼úite prin formare, fapt care reprezint─â at├ót o obliga┼úie, c├ót ┼či un drept.

3.┬áEste esen┼úial ca judec─âtorii s─â aib─â, dup─â selec┼úia ulterioar─â absolvirii studiilor de drept, o instruire detaliat─â, am─ânun┼úit─â ┼či diversificat─â, pentru a-┼či ├«ndeplini obliga┼úiile ├«ntr-un mod satisf─âc─âtor.

4. Formarea ├«n acest fel reprezint─â totodat─â o garan┼úie a independen┼úei ┼či impar┼úialit─â┼úii lor, ├«n conformitate cu cerin┼úele Conven┼úiei privind protec┼úia drepturilor omului ┼či a libert─â┼úilor fundamentale.

┬á5. ├Än cele din urm─â, formare reprezint─â o premis─â esen┼úial─â pentru ca sistemul judiciar s─â fie respectat ┼či demn de respect. ├Äncrederea cet─â┼úenilor ├«n sistemul judiciar va fi consolidat─â dac─â judec─âtorii vor avea cuno┼čtin┼úe detaliate ┼či diverse care s─â se extind─â dincolo de domeniul legislativ, c─âtre domenii cu importan┼ú─â social─â, precum ┼či dac─â ├«n┼úelegerea ┼či abilit─â┼úile demonstrate ├«n sala de judecat─â ┼či cele personale le vor permite s─â solu┼úioneze cauzele ┼či s─â trateze ├«ntr-un mod corespunz─âtor toate persoanele implicate. Pe scurt, formarea este esen┼úial─â pentru ├«ndeplinirea obiectiv─â, impar┼úial─â ┼či competent─â a atribu┼úiilor judec─âtore┼čti ┼či pentru protejarea judec─âtorilor de influen┼úe necorespunz─âtoare.

┬á6. Exist─â diferen┼úe semnificative ├«ntre statele europene ├«n ceea ce prive┼čte formarea ini┼úial─â ┼či cea la locul de munc─â a judec─âtorilor. Aceste diferen┼úe pot avea par┼úial leg─âtur─â cu caracteristicile particulare ale diferitelor sisteme judiciare, dar unele aspecte nu par a fi inevitabile sau imperativ necesare. Unele state impun o educa┼úie formal─â de durat─â ├«n institu┼úii specializate, urmate de formare continu─â intensiv─â. Alte state impun un tip de ucenicie sub supravegherea unui judec─âtor cu experien┼ú─â care ├«┼či pune la dispozi┼úie cuno┼čtin┼úele ┼či sfatul profesional ├«n baza unor exemple concrete, ar─ât├ónd abordarea cauzei care trebuie avut─â ├«n vedere, evit├ónd ├«n acest fel orice fel de didacticism. Statele ├«n care func┼úioneaz─â sistemul de drept anglo-saxon se bazeaz─â ├«ntr-o mare m─âsur─â pe experien┼úa profesional─â a celor numi┼úi de obicei din r├óndurile avoca┼úilor. ├Äntre aceste posibilit─â┼úi exist─â un num─âr mare de state unde tipul de formare este ├«ntr-o m─âsur─â mai mare sau mai mic─â organizat ┼či obligatoriu.

┬á7. Indiferent de diversitatea sistemelor institu┼úionale la nivel na┼úional ┼či de problemele care survin ├«n anumite state, formarea trebuie v─âzut─â ca fiind esen┼úial─â ├«n lumina necesit─â┼úii de ├«mbun─ât─â┼úire at├ót a capacit─â┼úii celor care activeaz─â ├«n serviciul public judiciar, c├ót ┼či a func┼úion─ârii ├«n sine a acestui serviciu.

┬á8. Importan┼úa form─ârii judec─âtorilor este recunoscut─â ├«n instrumente interna┼úionale cum ar fi Principiile de baz─â ale ONU privind independen┼úa sistemului judiciar, adoptate ├«n 1985 ┼či textele Consiliului Europei adoptate ├«n 1994 (Recomandarea nr. R (94) 12 privind independen┼úa, eficien┼úa ┼či rolul judec─âtorilor) ┼či ├«n 1998 (Carta european─â privind statutul judec─âtorilor). De asemenea, se fac referiri ├«n aceast─â privin┼ú─â ┼či ├«n alineatul 11 al Avizului nr. 1 al CCJE.

Dreptul la instruire ┼či nivelul juridic la care acest drept trebuie garantat

┬á9. Principiile constitu┼úionale trebuie s─â garanteze independen┼úa ┼či impar┼úialitatea de care depinde legitimitatea judec─âtorilor, iar judec─âtorii trebuie, pe de alt─â parte, s─â asigure men┼úinerea unui ├«nalt grad de competen┼ú─â profesional─â (a se vedea alineatul 50 (ix) din Avizul nr. 3 al CCJE).

┬á10. ├Än multe state, formarea judec─âtorilor este guvernat─â de regulamente speciale. Ceea ce este esen┼úial este includerea nevoii de formare ├«n aceste regulamente care guverneaz─â statului judec─âtorilor; regulamentele juridice nu trebuie s─â detalieze con┼úinutul precis al procesului de formare, ci s─â ├«ncredin┼úeze aceast─â misiune unui organism special responsabil cu elaborarea unei curricule prin care s─â se pun─â la dispozi┼úie activitatea de formare ┼či s─â se supravegheze acest proces.

┬á11. Statul are datoria s─â pun─â la dispozi┼úia autorit─â┼úii judec─âtore┼čti sau a unui alt organism independent cu atribu┼úii de organizare ┼či supraveghere a procesului de formare mijloacele necesare ┼či s─â ├«nt├ómpine costurile ocazionate ├«n urma activit─â┼úii judec─âtorilor sau a altor persoane implicate.

 12. Prin urmare, CCJE recomandă ca legislaţia privind statutul judecătorilor din fiecare state să prevadă formarea judecătorilor.

 Autoritatea cu atribuţii în procesul de formare

┬á13. Carta european─â privind statutul judec─âtorilor (alineatul 2.3) prevede c─â orice autoritate cu atribu┼úii ├«n supravegherea calit─â┼úii programului de formare trebuie s─â fie independent de puterea executiv─â ┼či cea legislativ─â ┼či c─â cel pu┼úin o jum─âtate din membrii s─âi trebuie s─â aib─â func┼úia de judec─âtor. Memorandumul explicativ indic─â, de asemenea, c─â formarea judec─âtorilor nu trebuie s─â se limiteze la formarea juridic─â tehnic─â, ci trebuie s─â ia ├«n considerare faptul c─â natura func┼úiei judec─âtore┼čti necesit─â deseori interven┼úia judec─âtorului ├«n anumite situa┼úii dificile sau complexe.

┬á14. Aceasta subliniaz─â importan┼úa fundamental─â ├«n raport cu independen┼úa ┼či structura autorit─â┼úii cu atribu┼úii ├«n procesul de formare, precum ┼či ├«n con┼úinutul activit─â┼úii de formare. Acesta este un corolar al principiului general al independen┼úei judiciare.

┬á15. Activitatea de formare reprezint─â o chestiune de interes public ┼či, prin urmare, se impune protejarea independen┼úei autorit─â┼úii cu atribu┼úii ├«n elaborarea planurilor de instruire ┼či ├«n procesul decizional referitor la tipul de formare pus la dispozi┼úie.

┬á16. Sistemul judiciar trebuie s─â aib─â un rol major sau s─â fie ├«n sine responsabil pentru organizarea ┼či supravegherea activit─â┼úii de formare. Astfel, conform recomand─ârilor Cartei europene privind statutul judec─âtorilor, CCJE recomand─â ca aceste responsabilit─â┼úi s─â fie preluate ├«n fiecare stat nu de c─âtre Ministerul de Justi┼úie sau de c─âtre o alt─â autoritate subordonat─â legislativului sau executivului, ci chiar de c─âtre autoritatea judec─âtoreasc─â sau de c─âtre un alt organism independent (incluz├ónd o Comisie a Serviciului Judiciar). Asocia┼úiile de judec─âtori pot juca un rol important ├«n ├«ncurajarea ┼či facilitarea activit─â┼úii de formare dac─â lucreaz─â ├«n str├óns─â leg─âtur─â cu organismele judiciare sau cu alte autorit─â┼úi care prezint─â o responsabilitate direct─â ├«n acest sens.

┬á17. Pentru a se asigura separarea corespunz─âtoare a rolurilor, trebuie ca aceea┼či autoritate s─â aib─â atribu┼úii directe fie ├«n activitatea de formare, fie ├«n activitatea de disciplinare a judec─âtorilor. Prin urmare, CCJE recomand─â ca activitatea de formare s─â fie ├«ncredin┼úat─â unei institu┼úii speciale autonome cu buget propriu subordonat autorit─â┼úii judec─âtore┼čti sau unei alt organism independent. O astfel de institu┼úie special─â ar putea elabora, prin consultare cu judec─âtorii, programe de formare ┼či punerea ├«n aplicare a acestora.

┬á18. Trebuie, de asemenea, ca persoanele cu atribu┼úii ├«n activitatea de formare s─â nu fie ├«n mod direct responsabile cu numirea ┼či promovarea judec─âtorilor. ├Än cazul ├«n care autoritatea respectiv─â (de exemplu o comisie a serviciului judiciar), la care se face referire ├«n Avizul nr. 1 al CCJE, alineatele 73 punctul 3, 37 ┼či 45, are atribu┼úii at├ót ├«n activitatea de formare, c├ót ┼či ├«n numirea ┼či promovarea judec─âtorilor, trebuie f─âcut─â o separa┼úie clar─â ├«ntre departamentele responsabile cu aceste activit─â┼úi.

┬á19. Pentru a proteja o astfel de institu┼úie de influen┼úe exterioare necorespunz─âtoare, CCJE recomand─â ca personalul managerial ┼či formatorii din cadrul institu┼úiei s─â fie numi┼úi de c─âtre autoritatea judec─âtoreasc─â sau de c─âtre o alt─â autoritate independent─â cu atribu┼úii ├«n organizarea ┼či supravegherea activit─â┼úii de formare.

┬á20. Este important ca activitatea de formare s─â fie desf─â┼čurat─â de c─âtre judec─âtori ┼či exper┼úi ├«n fiecare disciplin─â. Formatorii trebuie ale┼či dintre cei mai buni profesioni┼čti ┼či selecta┼úi cu aten┼úie de c─âtre autoritatea cu atribu┼úii ├«n activitatea de formare, lu├ónd ├«n considerare at├ót cuno┼čtin┼úele lor cu privire la subiectele predate, c├ót ┼či capacitatea pedagogic─â.

┬á21. Atunci c├ónd judec─âtorii sunt responsabili cu activitatea de formare, este important ca ace┼čtia s─â p─âstreze contactul cu practica judec─âtoreasc─â.

┬á22. Metodele de formare trebuie stabilite ┼či revizuite de c─âtre autoritatea formatoare ┼či trebuie s─â existe ├«ntruniri regulate ale formatorilor pentru a le permite schimbul de experien┼ú─â ┼či ├«mbun─ât─â┼úirea metodelor aplicate.

 Formare iniţială

 a. Este obligatorie activitatea de formare?

┬á23. De┼či este evident faptul c─â judec─âtorii recruta┼úi la ├«nceputul carierei lor profesionale trebuie forma┼úi, se na┼čte totu┼či ├«ntrebarea dac─â este necesar─â activitatea de formare atunci c├ónd judec─âtorii sunt selecta┼úi dintre cei mai buni avoca┼úi, av├ónd o vast─â experien┼ú─â, cum ar fi de exemplu ├«n ┼ú─ârile cu sistem de drept anglo-saxon.

┬á24. ├Än opinia CCJE, ambele grupuri trebuie s─â treac─â prin procesul de formare ini┼úial─â: ├«ndeplinirea obliga┼úiilor judiciare reprezint─â o profesie nou─â pentru ambele grupuri ┼či implic─â o abordare specific─â ├«n mai multe domenii, mai ales cu privire la etica profesional─â a judec─âtorilor, procedur─â ┼či rela┼úionarea cu toate persoanele implicare ├«n ac┼úiunile judec─âtore┼čti.

┬á25. Pe de alt─â parte, trebuie luate ├«n considerare ┼či caracteristicile speciale de ale metodelor de recrutare astfel ├«nc├ót programele de formare s─â poat─â fi direc┼úionate ┼či adaptate corespunz─âtor: avoca┼úii cu experien┼ú─â trebuie instrui┼úi numai ├«n ceea ce este necesar pentru noua lor profesie. ├Än unele state mici, care prezint─â un sistem judiciar mai pu┼úin dezvoltat, oportunit─â┼úile de formare locale pot fi mai limitate ┼či mai informale, dar aceste state pot beneficia mai ales de oportunit─â┼úi de formare comune cu alte state.

 26. Prin urmare, CCJE recomandă formarea iniţială obligatorie prin programe conforme cu experienţa profesională a celor numiţi în funcţie.

 b. Programul de formare iniţială

┬á27. Planul de formare ini┼úial─â ┼či intensitatea form─ârii vor varia ├«n func┼úie de metoda aleas─â ├«n recrutarea judec─âtorilor. Activitatea de formare nu trebuie s─â se rezume doar la ├«nv─â┼úarea tehnicilor folosite ├«n solu┼úionarea cazurilor de c─âtre judec─âtori, ci trebuie s─â ia totodat─â ├«n considerare necesitatea con┼čtientiz─ârii sociale ┼či a ├«n┼úelegerii am─ânun┼úite a diferitelor teme care reflect─â complexitatea vie┼úii ├«n societate. ├Än plus, deschiderea grani┼úelor ├«nseamn─â c─â viitorii judec─âtori trebuie s─â trebuie s─â con┼čtientizeze faptul c─â sunt judec─âtori europeni ┼či c─â trebuie s─â fie la curent cu temele europene.

 28.Având în vedere diversitatea sistemelor de formare a judecătorilor din Europa, CCJE recomandă:

i. toate persoanele numite ├«n func┼úii judiciare s─â aib─â sau s─â dob├óndeasc─â, ├«nainte de preluarea ├«ndatoririlor, cuno┼čtin┼úe vaste ├«n domeniul dreptului material na┼úional ┼či interna┼úional ├«n domeniul dreptului procesual;

ii. programele de formare specific─â exercit─ârii profesiei de judec─âtor s─â fie stabilite de c─âtre institu┼úia cu atribu┼úii ├«n activitatea de formare ┼či de c─âtre formatori ┼či judec─âtori;

iii. aceste programe teoretice ┼či practice s─â nu se limiteze la doar la aspectul tehnic al domeniilor juridice ┼či s─â includ─â ┼či formarea ├«n domeniul deontologiei ┼či introducerea ├«n alte domenii relevante pentru activitatea judiciar─â, cum ar fi managementul cauzelor ┼či administrarea instan┼úelor, tehnologia informa┼úiei, limbi str─âine, ┼čtiin┼úe sociale ┼či solu┼úionarea alternativ─â a disputelor (SAD);

iv. activitatea de formare s─â fie pluralist─â ├«n sensul garant─ârii ┼či consolid─ârii deschiderii perspectivei judec─âtorilor;

v. ├«n func┼úie de existen┼úa ┼či durata experien┼úei profesionale anterioare, activitatea de formare trebuie s─â aib─â o durat─â semnificativ─â pentru a evita restr├óngerea ei numai la nivel de form─â.

┬á29. CCJE recomand─â ca practic─â o perioad─â de formare comun─â cu alte profesii ├«n domeniul juridic ┼či judiciar (de exemplu avoca┼úi ┼či procurori ├«n state unde ace┼čtia au atribu┼úii separate de cele ale judec─âtorilor). Aceast─â practic─â duce la o mai bun─â ├«n┼úelegere ├«ntre judec─âtori ┼či practican┼úii unor alte profesii.

┬á30. CCJE a luat, de asemenea, not─â c─â ├«n multe state accesul la func┼úiile de judec─âtor are drept condi┼úie experien┼úa profesional─â. De┼či nu este posibil ca un astfel de model s─â fie impus ├«n toate statele ┼či de┼či adoptarea unui sistem ce combin─â diverse metode de recrutare poate avea avantajul diversific─ârii bazei de plecare pentru judec─âtori, este important ca perioada de formare ini┼úial─â s─â includ─â, ├«n cazul candida┼úilor care au venit direct din sistemul universitar, o perioad─â substan┼úial─â de formare ├«n mediul profesional (practici avoca┼úiale, companii etc.)

 Formarea la locul de muncă

┬á31. ├Än afara faptului c─â judec─âtorii trebuie s─â dob├óndeasc─â cuno┼čtin┼úe de baz─â ├«nainte de instituirea ├«n func┼úie, ace┼čtia ÔÇ×sunt condamna┼úi la studiu ┼či instruire perpetu─âÔÇŁ (a se vedea raportul R. Jansen ÔÇ×Cum trebuie preg─âti┼úi judec─âtorii pentru a deveni judec─âtori cu ├«nalt─â calificare ├«n 2003ÔÇŁ [ÔÇťHow to prepare judges to become well-qualified judges in 2003ÔÇŁ]), doc. CCJE-GT (2003) 3).

┬á32. Activitatea de formare ├«n acest sens este indispensabil─â nu numai din cauza schimb─ârilor ce au loc ├«n domeniul legislativ, al tehnologiei ┼či al cuno┼čtin┼úelor necesare ├«n ├«ndeplinirea atribu┼úiilor judec─âtore┼čti, ci ┼či din cauza posibilit─â┼úii ca ├«n multe state judec─âtorii s─â dob├óndeasc─â noi atribu┼úii la instituirea ├«n func┼úie. Prin urmare, programele de formare la locul de munc─â trebuie s─â ofere posibilitatea instruirii ├«n cazul unei schimb─âri de carier─â, cum ar fi transferul de la o instan┼ú─â penal─â la una civil─â; preluarea unei competen┼úe specifice (de exemplu o instan┼ú─â de dreptul familiei, minori sau probleme sociale) ┼či preluarea unei func┼úii cum ar fi cea de pre┼čedinte de complet sau de instan┼ú─â. Un astfel de transfer sau asumarea unor astfel de atribu┼úii pot fi condi┼úionate de urmarea unui program de formare relevant.

┬á33. De┼či organizarea form─ârii la locul de munc─â este esen┼úial─â, av├ónd ├«n vederea faptul c─â societatea are dreptul de a beneficia de judec─âtori bine preg─âti┼úi, este de asemenea necesar─â cultivarea activit─â┼úii de formare ├«n sistemul judiciar.

┬á34. Nu este o practic─â eficient─â obligativitatea activit─â┼úii de formare la locul de munc─â ├«n fiecare caz. Exist─â pericolul ca o astfel de practic─â s─â devin─â birocratic─â ┼či s─â r─âm├ón─â numai la nivel de form─â. Activitatea de formare sugerat─â trebuie s─â fie suficient de atractiv─â pentru a determina judec─âtorii s─â participe, deoarece participarea voluntar─â este cea mai bun─â garan┼úie pentru eficien┼úa activit─â┼úii de formare. Aceast─â ac┼úiune este totodat─â facilitat─â prin asigurarea faptului c─â fiecare judec─âtor trebuie s─â fie con┼čtient c─â men┼úinerea ┼či actualizarea cuno┼čtin┼úelor dob├óndite reprezint─â o datorie de ordin etic.

 35. CCJE încurajează, de asemenea, în contextul formării continue, colaborarea cu alte organisme profesionale juridice cu atribuţii în formarea continuă în raport cu chestiuni de interes comun (de exemplu noi apariţii legislative).

┬á36. Se subliniaz─â ├«n continuare dorin┼úa de organizare a form─ârii continue la nivel judiciar ├«ntr-un mod care s─â includ─â toate nivelurile sistemului judiciar. Acolo unde este posibil, aceste niveluri trebuie reprezentate ├«n totalitatea lor ├«n cadrul acelora┼či sesiuni, oferind ocazia schimbului de perspective. Acest fapt duce la ruperea tendin┼úelor de ordin ierarhic, la diseminarea informa┼úiilor privind eventuale probleme la toate nivelurile sistemului judiciar ┼či promoveaz─â coeziunea ┼či o abordare mai obiectiv─â a sistemului judiciar.

 37. Prin urmare, CCJE recomandă:

i. formarea la locul de muncă în baza participării voluntare a judecătorilor;

ii. obligativitatea form─ârii la locul de munc─â numai ├«n cazuri excep┼úionale; exemplele pot include (├«n cazul ├«n care autoritatea judiciar─â sau o alt─â autoritatea decide ├«n acest sens) situa┼úii ├«n care un judec─âtor preia o func┼úie nou─â sau trebuie s─â ├«ndeplineasc─â noi atribu┼úii ┼či ├«ndatoriri sau ├«n cazul existen┼úei unor schimb─âri fundamentale ├«n legisla┼úie;

iii. elaborarea programelor de formare sub autoritatea institu┼úiei judiciare sau a unui alt organism cu atribu┼úii ├«n formarea ini┼úial─â ┼či formarea la locul de munc─â ┼či efectuat─â de c─âtre judec─âtorii ├«n┼či┼či;

iv. aceste programe, puse ├«n aplicare de aceea┼či autoritate, trebuie s─â se concentreze at├ót pe subiecte juridice, c├ót ┼či pe alte subiecte referitoare la atribu┼úii care trebuie ├«ndeplinite de c─âtre judec─âtori ┼či care corespund necesit─â┼úilor acestora (a se vedea alineatul 27 de mai sus);

v. instan┼úele trebuie s─â-┼či ├«ncurajeze membrii s─â participe la cursuri de formare la locul de munc─â;

vi. programele trebuie s─â se desf─â┼čoare ┼či s─â ├«ncurajeze un mediu ─ân care membrii diverselor ramuri ┼či niveluri ale sistemului judiciar ar putea s─â se ├«nt├ólneasc─â ┼či s─â fac─â schimb de experien┼ú─â, acumul├ónd cuno┼čtin┼úe comune;

vii. de┼či activitatea de formare reprezint─â o obliga┼úie de ordin etic pentru judec─âtori, statele membre au datoria de a pune la dispozi┼úia judec─âtorilor resursele financiare necesare, timpul ┼či alte mijloace necesare pentru desf─â┼čurarea de activit─â┼úi de formare la locul de munc─â.

 Evaluarea activităţii de formare

┬á38. Pentru a ├«mbun─ât─â┼úi continuu activitatea de formare judiciar─â, organismele cu atribu┼úii ├«n activitatea de formare trebuie s─â fac─â ├«n mod frecvent evaluarea programelor ┼či metodelor. Un rol important ├«n acest proces ├«l are opinia participan┼úilor la ini┼úiativele de formare, care pot fi ├«ncurajate prin mijloace adecvate (r─âspunsuri la chestionare, interviuri)

┬á39. De┼či nu exist─â nici o ├«ndoial─â c─â activitatea formatorilor trebuie monitorizat─â, evaluarea performan┼úelor participan┼úilor la ini┼úiative de formare judiciar─â este pus─â sub semnul ├«ntreb─ârii. Formarea la locul de munc─â a judec─âtorilor poate da rezultate numai dac─â interac┼úiunea lor voluntar─â nu este influen┼úat─â de considera┼úii privind cariera.

┬á40. ├Än statele ├«n care judec─âtorii sunt forma┼úi la ├«nceputul carierei lor profesionale, CCJE consider─â c─â este necesar─â evaluarea rezultatelor form─ârii ini┼úiale pentru a se asigura cele mai bune numiri ├«n sistemul judiciar. Prin contrast, ├«n statele ├«n care judec─âtorii sunt ale┼či din r├óndurile celor mai experimenta┼úi avoca┼úi, trebuie aplicate metode obiective de evaluare ├«nainte de numirea acestora ├«n func┼úie, activitatea de formare desf─â┼čur├óndu-se abia dup─â ce candida┼úii au fost selecta┼úi, astfel ├«nc├ót ├«n aceste state evaluarea ├«n timpul form─ârii ini┼úiale nu este o metod─â adecvat─â.

┬á41. Cu toate acestea, ├«n cazul candida┼úilor ce fac subiectul unei evalu─âri, este important ca ace┼čtia s─â fie proteja┼úi ├«mpotriva evalu─ârii arbitrale a muncii lor. ├Än plus, ├«n cazul statelor care organizeaz─â numirea temporar─â a judec─âtorilor, demiterea din func┼úie a acestora la sf├ór┼čitul perioadei de formare trebuie s─â se desf─â┼čoare av├ónd ├«n vedere m─âsurile de protec┼úie aplicabile judec─âtorilor atunci c├ónd are loc demiterea acestora din func┼úie.

 42. Luând în considerare cele menţionate mai sus, CCJE recomandă:

i. programele de formare ┼či metodele aplicate trebuie s─â fac─â obiectul unor evalu─âri frecvente efectuate de c─âtre autoritatea cu atribu┼úii ├«n activitatea formare judiciar─â;

ii. în principiu, participarea la iniţiative de formare ale judecătorilor nu trebuie să facă subiectul unei evaluări calitative; cu toate acestea, participarea acestora, în sine, considerată obiectiv poate fi avută în vedere în evaluarea profesională a judecătorilor;

iii. cu toate acestea, calitatea performanţelor persoanelor care participă în activităţi de formare trebuie evaluată în cazul în care o astfel de evaluare este necesară în virtutea faptului că în unele sisteme judiciare, formarea iniţială reprezintă o etapă în procesul de recrutare.

 Formarea judecătorilor la nivel european

┬á43. Indiferent de natura atribu┼úiilor lor, nici un judec─âtor nu poate ignora legisla┼úia european─â, fie c─â este vorba de Conven┼úia european─â a drepturilor omului sau alte conven┼úii ale Consiliului Europei sau, dup─â caz, Tratatul Uniunii Europene ┼či normele legislative ce deriv─â din acesta, deoarece ace┼čtia trebuie s─â le aplice direct ├«n cauzele aduse ├«n fa┼úa lor.

┬á44. Pentru a promova acest aspect esen┼úial al obliga┼úiilor judec─âtorilor, CCJE consider─â c─â statele membre, dup─â consolidarea studiului legisla┼úiei europene ├«n universit─â┼úi, trebuie s─â promoveze, de asemenea, includerea acestuia ├«n programele de formare ini┼úiale ┼či de formare la locul de munc─â pentru judec─âtori, f─âc├óndu-se referin┼úe ├«n special la aplicarea sa practic─â ├«n activitatea zilnic─â.

┬á45. De asemenea, recomand─â consolidarea re┼úelei europene pentru schimbul de informa┼úii dintre persoanele ┼či entit─â┼úile cu atribu┼úii ├«n formarea judec─âtorilor (Re┼úeaua Lisabona), care promoveaz─â formarea ├«n probleme de interes comun ┼či drept comparativ, aceast─â activitate de formare fiind at├ót ├«n beneficiul judec─âtorilor, c├ót ┼či al formatorilor. Func┼úionarea acestei Re┼úele poate fi eficient─â numai dac─â fiecare stat membru o sus┼úine, mai ales prin constituirea unui organism cu atribu┼úii ├«n formare judec─âtorilor, a┼ča cum s-a subliniat ├«n sec┼úiunea II de mai sus ┼či prin cooperare la nivel european ├«n acest domeniu.

┬á46. Mai mult, CCJE consider─â cooperarea, printre alte ini┼úiative care au scopul de a aduce ├«mpreun─â institu┼úiile de formare judiciar─â ├«n Europa, mai ales ├«n cadrul Re┼úelei Judiciare Europene de Formare, ca fiind un aspect care poate contribui la o mai mare coordonare ┼či armonizare a programelor ┼či metodelor utilizate ├«n formarea judec─âtorilor la nivelul ├«ntregului continent.

= English =

Opinion no 4 of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) to the attention of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on appropriate initial and in-service training for judges at national and European levels

Introduction

1. At a time when we are witnessing an increasing attention being paid to the role and significance of the judiciary, which is seenas the ultimate guarantor of the democratic functioning of institutions at national, European and international levels, the question of the training of prospective judges before they take up their posts and of in-service training is ofparticular importance (see Opinion of the CCJE N┬░ 1 (2001), paragraphs 10-13 and Opinion N┬░ 3 (2002), paragraphs 25 and 50.ix).

2. The independence of the judiciary confers rights onjudgesof all levels and jurisdictions, but also imposes ethical duties. The latter include the duty to perform judicial work professionally and diligently, which implies that they should have great professional ability, acquired, maintained and enhanced by the training which they have a duty, as well as a right, to undergo.

3. It is essential that judges,selected after having done full legal studies, receive detailed, in-depth, diversified training so that they are able to perform their duties satisfactorily.

4. Such training is also a guarantee of their independence and impartiality, in accordance with the requirements of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

5. Lastly, training is a prerequisite if the judiciary is to be respected and worthy of respect. The trust citizens place in the judicial system will be strengthened if judges have a depth and diversity of knowledge which extend beyond the technical field of law to areas of important social concern, as well as courtroom and personal skills and understanding enabling them to manage cases and deal with all persons involved appropriately and sensitively. Training is in short essentialfor the objective, impartial and competent performance of judicial functions, and to protect judges from inappropriate influences.

6. There are great differences among European countries with respect to the initial and in-service training of judges. These differences can in part be related toparticular features of the differentjudicial systems, but in some respects do not seem to be inevitable or necessary. Some countries offer lengthy formal training in specialised establishments, followed by intensive further training. Others provide a sort of apprenticeship under the supervision of an experienced judge, who imparts knowledge and professional advice on the basis of concrete examples, showing what approach to take and avoiding any kind of didacticism. Common law countries rely heavily on a lengthy professional experience, commonly as advocates. Between these possibilities, there is a whole range of countries where training is to varying degrees organised and compulsory.

7. Regardless of the diversity of national institutional systems and the problems arising in certain countries, training should be seen as essential in view of the need to improve not only the skills of those in the judicial public service but alsothe very functioning of that service.

8. The importance of the training of judges is recognised in international instruments such as the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, adopted in 1985, and Council of Europe textsadopted in 1994 (Recommendation N┬░ R (94) 12on the independence, efficiency and role of judges) and 1998 (European Charter on the Statute for Judges) and was referred to in paragraph 11 of the CCJEÔÇÖs Opinion N┬░ 1.

The right to training and the legal level at which this right should be guaranteed

9. Constitutional principles should guarantee the independence and impartiality on which the legitimacy of judges depends, and judges for their part should ensure that they maintain a high degree of professional competence (see paragraph 50 (ix) of the CCJE Opinion N┬░ 3).

10. In many countries the training of judges is governed by special regulations. The essential point is to include the need for training in the rules governing the status of judges; legal regulations should not detail the precise content of training, but entrust this task to a special body responsible for drawing up the curriculum, providing the training and supervising its provision.

11. The State has a duty to provide the judiciary or other independent body responsible for organising and supervising training with the necessary means, and to meet the costs incurred by judges and others involved.

12. The CCJE therefore recommends that, in each country, the legislation on the status of judges should provide for the training of judges.

The authority responsible for training

13. The European Charter on the Statute for Judges (paragraph 2.3)states that any authority responsible for supervising the quality of the training programme should be independent of the Executive and the Legislature and that at least half its members should be judges. The Explanatory Memorandum also indicatesthat the training of judges should not be limited to technical legal training, but should also take into account that the nature of the judicial office often requires the judge to intervene in complex and difficult situations.

14. This highlights the key importance attaching to the independence and composition of the authority responsible for training and its content. This is a corollary of the general principle of judicial independence.

15. Trainingis a matter of public interest, andthe independence of the authority responsible for drawing up syllabuses and deciding what training should be provided must be preserved.

16. The judiciary should play a major role in oritself be responsible for organising and supervising training. Accordingly, and in keeping with the recommendations of the European Charter on the Statute for Judges, the CCJE advocates that these responsibilities should, in each country, be entrusted, not to the Ministry of Justice or any other authority answerable to the Legislature or the Executive, but to the judiciary itself oranother┬áindependent body┬á(including a┬áJudicial Service Commission). JudgesÔÇÖ associations can also play a valuable role in encouraging and facilitating training, working in conjunction with the judicial or other body which has direct responsibility.

17. In order to ensure a proper separation of roles, the same authorityshould not be directly responsible for both training and disciplining judges. The CCJE therefore recommends that, under the authority of the judiciary or other independent body, training should be entrusted to a special autonomous establishment with its own budget, which is thus able, in consultation with judges, to devise training programmes and ensure their implementation.

18. Those responsible for trainingshould not also bedirectly┬áresponsible for appointing or promoting┬ájudges.┬áIf the┬á┬ábody (i.e. a judicial service commission)┬áreferred to in the CCJE’s┬áOpinion N┬░ 1,┬áparagraphs┬á73┬á(3), 37, and┬á45,┬áis competent for training and appointment or promotion, a clear separation should be provided between its branches responsible for these tasks.

19. In order to shield the establishment from inappropriate outside influence, the CCJE recommends that the managerial staff and trainersof the establishment should be appointed by the judiciary orother independent body responsible for organising and supervising training.

20. It is important that the training is carried out by judges and by experts ineach discipline. Trainers should be chosen from among the best in their profession and carefully selected by the body responsible for training, taking into account their knowledge of the subjects being taught and their teaching skills.

21. When judges are in charge of training activities, it is important that these judges preserve contact with court practice.

22. Training methods should be determined and reviewed by the training authority, and there should be regular meetings for trainers to enable them to share their experiences and enhancetheir approach.

Initial training

a. Should training be mandatory?

23. While it is obvious that judges who are recruited at the start of their professional careerneed to be trained, the question arises whetherthis is necessary where judges are selected from among the best lawyers, who are experienced, as (for instance) in Common Law countries.

24. In the CCJEÔÇÖs opinion, both groups should receive initial training: the performance of judicial duties is a new profession for both, and involves a particular approach in many areas, notably with respect to the professional ethics of judges, procedure, and relations with all persons involved in court proceedings.

25. On the other hand, it is important to take the specific features of recruitment methods into account so as to target and adapt the training programmes appropriately: experienced lawyers need to be trained only in what is required for their new profession. In some small countries with a very small judiciary, local training opportunities may be more limited and informal, but such countries in particular may benefit from shared training opportunities with other countries.

26. The CCJE therefore recommends mandatoryinitial training byprogrammes appropriate to appointeesÔÇÖ professional experience.

b. The initial training programme

27. The initial training syllabus and the intensiveness of the training will differ greatly according to the chosen method of recruiting judges. Training should not consist only of instruction in the techniques involved in the handling of cases by judges, but should also take into consideration the need for social awareness and an extensive understanding of different subjects reflecting the complexity of life in society. In addition, the opening up of borders means that future judges need to be aware that they are European judges and be more aware of European issues.

28. In view of the diversity of the systems for training judges in Europe, the CCJE recommends:

i. that all appointeestojudicial posts should have or acquire, before they take up their duties, extensive knowledge of substantive national and international law and procedure;

ii. that training programmes more specific to the exercise of the profession of judge should be decided on by the establishment responsible for training, and by the trainers and judges themselves;

iii. that these theoretical and practical programmes should not be limited to techniques in the purely legal fields but should also include training in ethics and an introduction to other fields relevant to judicial activity, such as management of cases and administration of courts, information technology, foreign languages, social sciences and alternative dispute resolution (ADR);

iv. that the training should be pluralist in order to guarantee and strengthen the open-mindedness of the judge;

v. that, depending upon the existence and length of previous professional experience, training should be of significant length in order to avoid its being purely a matter of form.

29. The CCJE recommends the practice of providing for a period of training common to the various legal and judicial professions (for instance, lawyers and prosecutors in countries where they perform duties separate from those of judges). This practice is likely to foster better knowledge andreciprocalunderstanding between judges and other professions.

30. The CCJE has also noted that many countries make access to judicial posts conditional upon prior professional experience. While it does not seem possible to impose such a model everywhere, and while the adoption of a system combining various types of recruitment may also have the advantage of diversifying judgesÔÇÖ backgrounds, it is important that the period of initial training should include, in the case of candidates who have come straight from university, substantial training periods in a professional environment (lawyersÔÇÖ practices, companies, etc).

In-service training

31. Quite apart from the basic knowledge they need to acquire before they take up their posts, judges are ÔÇťcondemned to perpetual study and learningÔÇŁ (see report of R. Jansen ÔÇťHow to prepare judges to become well-qualified judges in 2003ÔÇŁ, doc. CCJE-GT (2003) 3).

32. Such training is made indispensable not only by changes in the law, technology and the knowledge required to perform judicial duties but also by the possibility in many countries that judges will acquire new responsibilities when they take up new posts. In-service programmes should therefore offer the possibility of training in the event of career changes, such as a move between criminal and civil courts; the assumption of specialist jurisdiction (e.g. in a family, juvenile or social court)andthe assumption of a post such as the presidency of a chamber or court.Such a move or the assumption of such a responsibility may be made conditional upon attendance on a relevant training programme.

33. While it is essential to organise in-service training, since society has the right to benefit from a well trained judge, it is also necessary to disseminate a culture of training in the judiciary.

34. It is unrealistic to make in-service training mandatoryin every case. The fear is that it would then become bureaucratic and simply a matter of form. The suggested training must be attractive enough to inducejudges to take part in it, as participation on a voluntary basis is the best guarantee for the effectiveness of the training. This should also be facilitated by ensuring that every judge is conscious that there is an ethical duty to maintain and update his or her knowledge.

35. The CCJE also encourages in the context of continuous training collaboration with other legal professional bodies responsible for continuous training in relation to matters of common interest (e.g. new legislation).

36. It further stresses the desirability of arranging continuous judicial training in a way which embraces all levels of the judiciary. Whenever feasible, the different levels should all be represented at the same sessions, giving the opportunity for exchange of views between them. This assists to break-down hierarchical tendencies, keeps all levels of the judiciary informed of each otherÔÇÖs problems and concerns, and promotes a more cohesive and consistent approach throughout the judiciary.

37. The CCJE therefore recommends:

i. that the in-service training should normallybe based on the voluntary participation of judges;

ii. that there maybe mandatory in-service training only in exceptional cases; examples might (if the judicial or other body responsible so decided) include when a judge takes up a new post or a different type of work or functions or in the event of fundamental changes in legislation;

iii. that training programmes should be drawn up under the authority of the judicial or other body responsible for initial and in-service training and by trainers and judges themselves;

iv. that those programmes, implemented under the same authority, should focus on legal and other issues relating to the functions performed by judges and correspond to their needs (see paragraph 27 above);

v. that the courts themselves should encourage their members to attend in-service training courses;

vi. that the programmes should take place in and encourage an environment, in which members of different branches and levels of the judiciary may meet and exchange their experiences and achieve common insights;

vii. that, while training is an ethical duty for judges, member states also have a duty to make available to judges the financial resources, time and other means necessary for in-service training.

Assessment of training

38. In order continuously to improve the quality of judicial training, the organs responsible for training should conduct frequent assessments of programmes and methods. An important role in this process should be played by opinions expressed by all participants to training initiatives, which may be encouraged through appropriate means (answers to questionnaires, interviews).

39. While there is no doubt that performance of trainers should be monitored, the evaluation of the performance of participants in judicial training initiatives is more questionable. The in-service training of judges may be truly fruitful if their free interaction is not influenced by career considerations.

40. In countries that train judges at the start of their professional career, the CCJE considers evaluation of the results of initial training to be necessary in order to ensure the best appointments to the judiciary. In contrast, in countries that choose judges from the ranks of experienced lawyers, objective evaluation methods are applied before appointment, with training occurring only after candidates have been selected, so that in those countries evaluation during initial training is not appropriate.

41. It is nevertheless important, in the case of candidates subject to an appraisal, that they should enjoy legal safeguards that protect them against arbitrariness in the appraisal of their work. In addition, in the case of States arranging for the provisional appointment of judges, the removal of these from office at the end of the training period should take place with due regard for the safeguards applicable to judges when their removal from office is envisaged.

42. In view of the above, the CCJE recommends:

i. that training programmes and methods should be subject to frequent assessments by the organs responsible for judicial training;

ii. that, in principle, participation injudgesÔÇÖ training initiatives should not be subject to qualitative assessment; their participation in itself, objectively considered, may however be taken into account for professional evaluation of judges;

iii. that quality of performance of trainees should nonetheless be evaluated, if such evaluation is made necessary by the fact that, in some systems, initial training is a phase of the recruitment process.

The European training of judges

43. Whatever the nature of their duties, nojudge can ignore European law, be it the European Convention on Human Rights or other Council of Europe Conventions, or if appropriate, the Treaty of the European Union and the legislation deriving from it, because they are required to apply it directly to the cases that come before them.

44. In order to promote this essential facet of judgesÔÇÖ duties, the CCJE considers that member states, after strengthening the study of European law in universities, should also promote its inclusion in the initial and in-service training programmes proposed forjudges, with particular reference to its practical applications in day-to-day work.

45. It also recommends reinforcing the European network for the exchange of information between persons and entities in charge of the training of judges (Lisbon Network),which promotes training on matters of common interest and comparative law,and that this training should cater for trainers as well as the judges themselves. The functioning of this Network can be effective only if every member state supports it, notably by establishing a body responsible for the training of judges, as set out in section II above, and by pan-European co-operation in this field.

46. Furthermore, the CCJE considers that the co-operation within other initiatives aiming at bringing together the judicial training institutions in Europe, in particular within the European Judicial Training Network, can effectively contribute to the greater coordination andharmonisation of the programmes and the methods of training of judges on the whole continent.

 

 

 

ABC Juridic

ABC Juridic a luat na┼čtere din dorin┼úa de a construi perspective pentru viitorii speciali┼čti ├«n domeniul juridic.

Related articles
0 Comments

No Comments Yet!

You can be first to comment this post!