200
Country reports on judicial corruption
There are three reasons why so little judicial advancement has resulted from the accession process:
Bangalore Principles although it is too early to evaluate its impact. Priority areas for reform are:
● The EU does not have particular requirements
judges vis à vis the executive. This includes involving representatives of the judiciary in discussions of the judicial budget and personnel matters. ● Introduce a career system for judges, specifically merit-based appointments and a proper evaluation system. Newly appointed judges should start their career in the appeal courts under the tuition of more experienced judges. Advanced training of judges should be conducted by an independent academy and not, as presently is the case, by an academy influenced by the Justice Ministry. ● Reform the system of appeals to prevent cases being continually referred between appeals bodies. ● Improve the law-making process to reduce the number of new laws.
concerning the institutional design of the judiciary. It is ‘interested’, insofar as the outcome is concerned, but leaves the reform process to the candidate country. ● The Justice Ministry has suffered from immense instability over the past 16 years (the current minister is the 15th incumbent). Each has had a distinctive political vision, which he or she tried to implement, always unsuccessfully.16 ● This instability is reinforced by the general unwillingness of parliament and the public to listen to the judiciary’s calls for more administrative independence so as to improve the delivery of justice.17 Efforts have been made to clean up the justice system. The Union of Judges in November 2005 adopted a code of conduct inspired by the
● Enhance the administrative independence of
Michal Sˇticˇka (TI Czech Republic, Prague)
16 Ibid. 17 The representatives of judges have been trying to change the attitude of the public and to a large extent have been successful.