Increasing Independence of Judiciary, Streamlining Judicial Governance and System of Appointment of Judges

- Majority of decision-makers in each judiciary governance body elected by their peers (other judges)

- Judiciary governance system granted with clear-cut powers for guaranteeing independence of judges, supporting activities of courts and
judges and representing their interests, including, powers to represent judicial branch as a whole

- More transparent representation quota and procedures for nomination of delegates to Congress of Judges

- Governance system of courts staff in place

- Enhanced requirements, including ethical ones, for members of judiciary governance bodies

- Cross representation of judiciary and other key justice sector stakeholder members (prosecutors, lawyers etc.) in composition of their
respective independent governance bodies

- Safeguards in place against any possibilities of political influence over the procedure of judges’ appointment and dismissal, holding the
judges liable for the legitimate exercise of their functions

- No role of political forces in transfer of judges (reassignments to particular post)

- Transparent internal review system of professional suitability within the judiciary in place, using objective criteria and fair
procedures

- All cases of appointment or transfer to particular judicial post are held upon merits-based criteria and competition basis

- Lifetime appointment to a judicial post is guaranteed with short or no probationary period

- Mission statements, objectives and performance targets are made an integral part of annual judiciary budgeting process; courts
expenditure plans are linked to commitments of meeting specific objectives and measurable targets

- Internal and external monitoring and evaluation (M&E) mechanisms and review reports attest satisfactory degree of implementation of
Judiciary Chapter of Justice Sector Reform Strategy (JSRS), including adequate degree of budget and financial resources to effectively
promote independence, accountability and competence of courts and judges

- Judiciary provides regular and constructive inputs for major policy and regulatory initiatives related to justice sector reform

- Use of statistics and evidence-based approach in all judiciary policy and regulatory initiatives

- Complex quantitative and qualitative M&E methodologies applied in internal review of implementation of all judiciary policies

- Mission statements, objectives and performance targets are made an integral part of annual judiciary budgeting process; courts
expenditure plans are linked to commitments of meeting specific objectives and measurable targets

- Financial planning and funding of courts based on the unified methodology

- Financial owners perform efficiently their duties of financial planning and funding of courts, oversight of effective use of budget funds

- Optimised staffing of courts in place through development and implementation of the workload standards for the judges and court staff;
mechanism of seconding the judges to other courts in place; effective planning and distribution of salary fund among courts on the basis of
the stipulated number of judges and court staff

- Ensured participation of the independent judiciary at all stages of budgeting-

- Unification of courts’ budgeting system (one budget for all courts)

- Program budgeting and performance-based budgeting methodologies with non-financial performance indicators applied in judiciary budget
formulation and implementation processes

- More active use of e-justice tools, information systems, research and analysis and evidence-based approach in justification of budgetary
needs;

- Increase in effectiveness of collection of court fees to be used to budget the courts

- Increased quality of public financial management (PFM) by judiciary, substantial reduction of arrears of courts to utilities, postal,
forensic, legal and other service providers,

- Single public procurement process in place based on harmonised needs assessment of all courts

- Court fee proceeds used increasingly as core sources to cover judiciary budgetary needs and resources;

- increased court fee rates in pecuniary litigation, while retaining the affordability of justice for low-income individuals

- User satisfaction surveys used regularly by judiciary governance bodies and courts to measure and improve quality of services

- Regular exchanges with European judiciary governance bodies and other international counterparts