TWINNING INTERIM QUARTERLY REPORT Number

TWINNING LIGHT START UP REPORT

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

TWINNING LIGHT PROJECT

START UP REPORT

Project Title: Support to the establishment of a State School for Judicial Officials

Partners: CROATIA and GERMANY

Date: 13 May 2011

Twinning Contract number: HR/2008/IB/JH/02TL

Glossary

Art.Article

BCBeneficiary country

Dr.Doctor

ECEuropean Commission

ENEnglish language

EUEuropean Union

HRCroatian language

ICTYInternational Criminal Tribunal for the former Yougoslavia

IRZ Deutsche Stiftung für internationale rechtliche Zusammenarbeit (= German Foundation for International Legal Co-operation)

JAJudicial Academy

mHRKmillion kuna

MoJMinistry of Justice

MSMember State

NNNarodne Novine (official journal)

SJCState Judicial Council

SPCState Prosecutorial Council

sqmsquare meters

TLTwinning light

Section 1: Project data

Section 2: Content

2A - BACKGROUND

Policy Developments

The European Council of June 2004 granted the status of candidate country to Croatia. Accession negotiations with Croatia were opened in October 2005. The Stabilisation and Association Agreement between Croatia and the EU (signed in October 2001) entered into force in February 2005.

Phare project 2005 „Support to the Judicial Academy of Croatia: Developing a training system for future judges and prosecutors“ developed in addition to a complete training program for trainees a new law on trainees and the bar exam, including all bylaws, a law on the judicial academy and a selection procedure for judges and prosecutors based on new transparent, objective critera. This project ended 2009.

The 2009 Progress Report on Croatia assessed the situation in the judiciary as follows: The implementation of the judicial reformstrategy has continued and a large volume of new legislation was adopted, in line with the key Accession Partnership priority in this area. A new selection procedure for judicial trainees was introduced.

Accession negotiations with Croatia on judiciary and fundamental rights (chapter 23) were opened in June 2010, once the Council concluded that Croatia had met the opening benchmarks. In the opening EU Common Position, it was stated that the provisional closure of negotiations on this chapter could be envisaged once a number of closing benchmarks were met, covering the following four areas: (1) judiciary; (2) fight against corruption and organised crime; (3) fundamental rights and (4) ICTY co-operation.

On 9 November 2010 the Commisison issued the Croatia 2010 Progress report. According to this report there has been good progress as regards the independence of the judiciary, which has been strengthened through amendments to the Constitution and the laws on the SJC, the state attorneys offices and the courts.Progress was also made towards the introduction of uniform, transparent, objective and nationally applicable criteria for the appointment of judges and prosecutors. Both selection systems remain to be tested in practice(in the view of this report).

In December 2010 the Croatian ministry of justice adopted its judicial reform strategy for the period from year 2011 until 2015. It includes as a goal:

1. Maintenance and further strengthening of the independence, impartiality and professionalism of the judiciary in accordance with the highest European standards.

This goal is planned to be achieved by defining and implementing the measures and implementation activities governed by the following strategic guidelines.

In order to support the monitoring of developments in this area, a Peer Assessment Mission was undertaken to independently assess progress in relation to chapter 23 and the benchmarks set. The Italian Judge Perilli visited Croatia from 1 to 4 February 2011 and reported his findings.

The “Report on the fulfillment of the closing benchmarks regarding Chapter 23” which the Croatian Government adopted on 11 May 2011 and sent to European Commission, points out:The Ministry of Justice established a track record of recruiting and appointing judges and state prosecutors. In accordance to legislative changes, visible results (track record) in appointing and recruiting judges based on uniform, transparent and objective criteria, applicable on a national level, have been accomplished. On State Judicial Council sessions held between November 2010 and February 2011,95 judges had been appointed. Judges who enter the judicial profession for the first time passed special procedure stipulated by law, including written tests and structural interviews, which are public, according to the transparency principle. Regarding the promotion of judges in their professional career, only judges with highest results for their work, according to the methodology for evaluation of judges, had been taken under consideration (more than 130 points of 150 maximum)”.

The current Hungarian presidency in the Council selected as one of their priorities to finalize accession negotiations with Croatia until end of June 2011. This project might be a little contribution to reach this goal.

Project Assumptions

Most of the original assumptions of the project have been fulfilled. The results achieved through Phare 2005 project are sustainable; the JA has equipped premises and financial means.

However, the State School for judicial officials has not its full staff capacity and needs to be supported by other sectors of the JA and the Councils. Staff hired on the positions of the State School and their financial means are partly used for other activities of the JA. This challenge is looked at within activities 4, 5 and 6 of this project. Financial means for travel costs of the senior advisors participating in the training of the State School need to be covered by the budget of the courts, but there the financial means have not been made available. This jeopardizes the functioning of the State School.

The assumption of active participation of all involved in project implementation needs constant attention. Originally, when this project had been designed some time ago, the State Judiciary Council and the State Prosecutorial Council were not involved as beneficiaries, as their competences were introduced only in 2010. On 14 April, the project organized a meeting with both Councils to include them into the project activities. Both Councils have office space in the same building as the JA and a basic secretary capacity has been made available. However, the secretaries have not been able to cooperate without formal request on a working level. It is assumed that the members of the councils participate in the legislation process, their training and in the study visit. The project leaders informed both Councils formally by written letter and kindly requested their participation.

2B - ACHIEVEMENT OF MANDATORY RESULTS

Mandatory results

This report covers the first two months of the project. Its results have not been achieved yet, but the activities are implemented as foreseen.

Completed

Activity 1: Kick-off meeting

Activity 2(1.1.): Analyzing the existing legal framework (legal and sub legal acts) that regulates the establishment and functioning of the State School for Judicial Officials, selection procedure of the best candidates for judges and State Attorneys as well as the professional training at the School.

Close to completion

Activity 1: First steering committee invited (13.5.)

Activity 3 (1.2.): Preparing recommendations on the already adopted bylaws regulating the institutional set up of the Academy (including the School) including rules of procedure for the Steering Council of JA.

Activity 4 (2.1.): Conducting analysis of the existing internal organizational structure of the State School

Activity 5 (2.2.): Conducting analysis of job descriptions and human resources needs in the State School

Activity 6 (2.3.): Preparing recommendations on the optimal internal organizational structure of the State School, including its planning and communication capacity

Benchmarks achieved

Activity 7 (1.3.): Preparing recommendations on the already adopted by-laws regulating the selection procedures stipulated in relevant articles of JA

(contact to Councils established, meeting MoJ agreed)

Activity 8 (2.4.): Preparing guidelines for the Selection Board for the overall selection procedure with an emphasis on conducting oral examination, structured interviews and final exam with candidates

(document first draft prepared)

Activity 9 (2.5.): Preparing guidelines for the evaluation of the School attendants to be conducted during their two- year traineeship

(first proposal elaborated)

Activity 10 (3.1): Preparing recommendations on how to develop the professional training programme for the attendants of the School

(working group set up, meeting proposed 5.5.)

Activity 11 (3.2): Preparing training strategy and train-the-trainer- programme for mentors and lecturers at the School

(proposal to be included in ongoing training)

Activity 12 (3.3): Developing complete training programme for the members of the Board on conducting oral examination including structured interview as well as final exam with candidates

(meeting with Councils)

Activity 13 (3.6): Organizing one study visit for four members of the Board and two relevant persons from the Academy (6 persons; maximum 3 days) to relevant institutions in EU Member state to become acquainted with the selection procedure of candidates for judges and deputy State Attorneys, especially with the oral examination including structural interviews with candidates

(date selected, selection of participants and program details ongoing)

Activity 14 (3.4): Conducting two trainings of at least 80 future mentors on skills and manner of evaluating attendants of the State school

(needs assessment sent to courts to identify priorities)

Activity 15 (3.5): Conducting two trainings on the best practices of conducting oral examination including structural interview for ten members of the Board

(announced, dates selected)

Activity 1: Second steering committee and final event

(date proposed so far: 2.9., may be postponed to week 37 = 12. – 15.9.)

2C. ACTIVITIES IN THE REPORTING PERIOD

Project implementation:

The kick-off meeting took place on 14 March 2011 at 10 am in the big hall in Chromos tower, where the JA, the State judicial Council and the State Prosecutorial Council have their offices. On Monday, 14 March 2011, a formal opening ceremony marked the official start of the IPA Twinning Light Project. Mr. Dražen Bošnjaković, Minister of Justice of the Republic of Croatia, Mr. Branko Hrvatin, President of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia and other high-ranking speakers addressed the audience.

This activity has been delivered by MS Project Leader judge Dr. Rainer Deville:

14.3. - 15.3. Dr. Deville Kick-off Meeting

The organisation has been done in close cooperation and with professional support from the JA and its implementation sector. We would like to highlight the perfect standard and organisation.

Result 1: The legal framework regulating the State School for Judicial Officials is analysed and finalised.

Indicators of achievement:

• Existing legal framework (legal and sublegal acts), selection procedure and professional training at the School analyzed;
• Recommendations on the already adopted By-laws regulating institutional set up of the Academy (including the School) including rules of procedure of the Steering Council of JA are prepared;
• Recommendations on the already adopted By-laws regulating the selection procedures stipulated in relevant articles of JA are prepared.

In order to implement this result, the work plan suggested these activities:

Activity 2 (1.1.): Analyzing the existing legal framework (legal and sub legal acts) that regulates the establishment and functioning of the State School for Judicial Officials, selection procedure of the best candidates for judges and State Attorneys as well as the professional training at the School.

Activity 3 (1.2): Drafting of recommendations on the already adopted bylaws regulating the institutional set up of the Academy (including the School) including rules of procedure for the Steering Council of JA.

Activity 7 (2.4): Preparing recommendations on the already adopted by-laws regulating the selection procedures stipulated in relevant articles of JA.

Activities 2 and 3 have been delivered by MS experts Zimmermann and Dr. Deville:

10.3. - 11.3.2011MS Expert Dr. Deville (Activity 2)

14.3. - 18.3.2011 MS Expert Mr. Zimmermann (Activity 2)

16.3. – 18.3.2011MS Expert Dr. Deville (Activity 2)

21.3. - 25.3.2011MS Expert Mr. Zimmermann (Activity 2)

11.4. - 15.4.2011 MS Expert Mr. Zimmermann (Activity 3)

18.4. - 21.4.2011MS Expert Dr. Deville (Activity 3) and MS Expert Mr. Zimmermann (Activity 3)

For the beneficiary the head of the State School, Mrs. Franić, and her colleague Judge Galić provided the project with the needed information and discussed details on a daily basis. The director of the JA Mrs. Goranić provided additional input. Meetings were held with all members of the State Judiciary Council and the State Prosecutorial Council (14.4.) and on the working level on 20.4. Contacts have been established to the German Embassy, the GIZ project in the MoJ (state secretary Haussner) and to ongoing British projects (concentrating on management in courts).

A meeting with the relevant sector of the MoJ (Mrs. Marija Jurman, Mrs. Lana Letilović) is upcoming (12.5.). Activity 7 is in experts' minds during the review of the legal acts.

In activities 2 and 3 the project analyzed the existing legal framework (legal and sub legal acts) that regulates the establishment and functioning of the State School for Judicial Officials, selection procedure of the best candidates for judges and State Attorneys as well as the professional training at the School.

The project had to check existing legislation, which has not been available in consolidated versions of the law. Due to the previous work done by the PHARE 2005 project the expert could start from the end date of that project (November 2009), review the new legislation, produce consolidated versions of the laws and their translation into English. As a result, an updated list of legislation, now showing the status of April 2011, is available in Croatian and English Language. It can be found in the Annexes (see list of annexes at the end).

The Constitution regulates in its chapter Judicial Power the basic principles of an independent Justice in conformity with the Rule of Law but also specifies in its amendments certain milestones of an independent and transparent judiciary. The State Judicial Council respectively State Attorney's Council is protected now by the amended Constitution as an “independent and autonomous body ensuring the independence of the judicial branch in the Republic of Croatia“. Art. 124 par. 3 and Art 125 par.4 require that the decisions of the councils shall be based on criteria set forth by law.

The membership of two law professors and two members of parliament (constitution Art. 124, 125 - a rule repeated in the laws which has been criticised by judge Perilli in his peer review mission) will be discussed within the overall findings of activities 2, 3 and 7.

The Judicial Academy Act establishes the State School for Judicial Officials and regulates mainly the initial and the continuous training for judges, trainees and other judicial officials. The entrance procedures and conditions for the candidates for the State School for Judicial Officials and the regulations on the final examination before the board are based on objective criteria, such as number of points in the bar examination, written and oral tests, and a psychological test. They fulfil all necessary requirements for the establishment of adequate training facilities as well as for the selection of future judges. It has to be underlined that the Judicial Academy is now established as an independent body. It has its own budget, the Steering and especially the Programme Council being dominated by judges and state attorneys, so to guarantee the establishment of training programmes in accordance with the specific needs of judges and public attorneys.