progress report 1pak.hr/cke/pdf eng/progress 1 report 091008[1].pdf · 2012-01-31 ·...

Support to the Judicial Academy of Croatia: Developing a training system for future judges and prosecutors: Republic of Croatia

EuropeAid/123227/D/SER/HR- 1 -

Version 9.10.2008

This project is implemented by Deutsche Stiftung für internationale rechtliche Zusammenarbeit e.V. (IRZ) in consortium with Human Dynamics. The views in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission

The European Union PHARE 2005 Programme for Croatia

„SUPPORT TO THE JUDICIAL ACADEMY OF CROATIA:

DEVELOPING A TRAINING SYSTEM FOR FUTURE JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS; REPUBLIC OF CROATIA“

Progress report 1

Period 1.2.2008 – 30.9.2008



Executive summary (covers section 1 – 5 below)

1. Implementation framework1.1 Institutional set-up and overall project organisation1.2 Staff and qualifications1.3 Monitoring and coordination agreements

2. Project performance and Impact2.1. Activities planned and implemented

2.1.1 General Activities2.1.2 Component 12.1.3 Component 22.1.4 Component 32.1.5 Component 42.1.6 Other activities of the project team

2.2 Resources planned and used2.3. Progress made (including a review of project indi ators)

2.3.1 General Progress2.3.2 Component 12.3.3 Component 22.3.4 Component 32.3.5 Component 4

2.4. Problems encountered2.5. Respect of, and contribution to, overarching policy issues2.6. Linkage with other operations, complementarity an sectoral coordination between donors

3. Detailed work plan (next implementation period)3.1 Results to be produced by the end of period3.2 Activity schedule, including milestones and responsibility3.3 Special activities to ensure sustainability (if any)3.4 Assumptions and risk3.5 Resource schedule

4. Sustainability 4.1. Participation and ownership by beneficiaries4.2. Policy support4.3. Appropriate technology4.4. Socio-cultural aspects4.5. Gender equality4.6. Environmental protection4.7. Institutional and management capacity4.8. Economic and financial viability

Table of Contents



5. Conclusions and Recommendations5.1. Conclusions in implementation (including critical issues / risks)5.2. Recommendation for next implementation period

Annexes



CFCA Central Finance and Contracting Agency

EJTN European Judicial Training Network

ERA Europäische Rechtsakademie (= Academy of European Law, Trier, Germany)

EC European Commission

EN English language

EU European Union

HR Croatian language

IRZ German Foundation for International Legal Co-operation

ISTE International Short Term Expert

JA Judicial Academy

MoJ Ministry of Justice

PIU Project Implementation Unit

PSC Project Steering Committee

SAA Stabilisation and Association Agreement

SCM Steering Committee Meeting

TL Team leader

ToR Terms of Reference

Glossary



(covers section 1 – 5 below)

Inception 1 Febuary 2008 31 March 2008 Inception Report delivered

P1 1 April 2008 30 Sept. 2008 First Progress Report

30 Sept. 2008

P2 1 Oct. 2008 31 March 2009 Second Progress Report

31 March 2009

P3 1 April 2009 30 Sept. 2009 Third Progress Report

30 Sept. 2009

Final 30 Sept. 2009 31 Dec. 2009 Final Report 30 Nov. 2009

Executive summary

Reporting schedule

Period Start Date End Date Type of Report Delivery Date



Project Title : Support to the Judicial Academy of Croatia: Developing training system for future judges and prosecutors: Republic of Croatia

Project Number : Europeaid/123227/D/SER/HRCountry : Croatia

Overall objective : Strengthening the effectiveness and proficiency of the Croatian judiciary.

Purpose : To develop a training system and selection of future judges and prosecutors.

Specific objectives

: Amendments to the Law on apprenticeships of trainees and the content of the Bar Exam, as well as the laws regulating the selection and appointment of judgesStrategy of improvement for the selection criteria and recruitment procedure of future judges and prosecutors New designed Strategy for the training of future judge and prosecutors and the relevant training curricula/modules Access to legal information for trainees and court advisers should/needs to be improved, as well as the training networks should/need to be strengthened.

Expected results : Amendments to the Law on apprenticeships of trainees and the content of the Bar Exam, as well as the laws regulating the selection and appointment of judgesStrategy of improvement for the selection criteria an recruitment procedure of future judges and prosecutors New designed Strategy for the training of future judge and prosecutors and the relevant training curricula/modules Access to legal information for trainees and court advisers should be improved, as well as the training networks should be strengthened.

Duration : 1 February 2008 – 31 December 2009Team leader : Dr. Rainer Deville

Project Synopsis

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•



Amendments to the Law on trainees and the content of the Bar examLaws regulating the selection and appointment of judge and prosecutorsDevelopment of strategies for the selection criteria and recruitment proceduresNewly designed Strategy for the initial training of future judges and prosecutors and development of relevant training curri a Access to legal information for trainees and court advisors improvement and training to strengthen networks

A new law on trainees and the content of the bar exam has been elaborated by the project and has been passed by the Parliament

HR Zakon o vježbenicima u pravosudnim tijelima i pravosud om ispitu

: EN New law on judicial trainees and bar exam

The new law provides transparent selection criteria for judicial trainees, which are as objective as possible. The decision of the selection committee can be appealed by request.A more advanced traineeship will become a reality. The skills and quality of mentors and examiners will also increase as they will receive a special training and will be selected only on the base of experience and ability. The same bar exam is taken by all trainees regardless the pillar in which they have been trained. It will be standardized nd will consider the practical needs of the judges and prosecutors. It nsists of written tests and an oral exam. The new evaluation system will offer the possibility of competition to the candidates who pass the bar examination successfully. heir practical skills and knowledge are made comparable by the amounts of points achieved in the bar examination. The new law mandates an objective and transparent selec on procedure as well as the anonymous written part of the bar exam to ensure an objective and transparent procedure. The oral examination will be conducted in the constant presence of all members of the Examination Committee and the final decision on the evaluation of the candidate will be a common decision taken by all members. Laws regulating the selection and appointment of judges and prosecutorsare about to be discussed in a round table.

The results to accomplish are:

The project has completed these following results already:

Annex 34:

Annex 35

Amendments to the law on courts are introduced: Annex 9, 10

•••

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•



A newly designed strategy for the initial training of future judges and prosecutors and the development of relevant training curricula are in process. Trainers and training needs have been identified; the training of the trainers is ongoing. Access to legal information for trainees and court advisors is available within the existing system. International training networks are already established. The project is working to achieve a higher level.

Within the next period the project will develop a law raft concerning the selection criteria for judges and prosecutors and finalize the training of the trainers. In addition the implementation of the pilot training for trainees will be launched.

•

•



During the time of post-socialist political and economic transition, the Croatian judicial system faced serious difficulties which had a impact on its efficiency, and indirectly on the independence, impartiality and p ofessionalism of the judiciary. With a view to defining a strategic approac to the judicial reform, in September 2005 the Croatian Government adopted the Str egy of the Reform of the Judicial System and its Action Plan. Finally, in January 2006, the Croatian Parliament passed the Strategy and its Action Plan. To y the need to revise the Action Plan of 2006 is evident. So far a draft of a revised Action Plan of the judicial reform strategy is available (version of 5th June 2008). In the revision of the Action Plan, Croatia mainly will have to take into consideration the recommendations included in the Screening Report for C apter 23 - Judiciary and Fundamental Rights, as it is the priority of the government to join the EU as soon as possible.

This draft highlights the developments made: With respect to the strengthening of the independence of the judiciary in the implementation of the measures included in the Action Plan of the Strategy of the Reform of the Judicial System, emphasis is placed on the procedures of the appointment and assessment of work of judicial officials. In that sense, in February 2007, the new Rules of Procedure of the State Judiciary Council were adopted. In the procedure of the appointment of judges, the Rules of Procedure introduce the possibility of interviews with candidates, but also with the president of the Council of Judges who assessed the candidates, with a view to increasing the objectivity of the criteria used in selecting judges. In July 2007 the Framework Criteria for the Work of Judges were adopted, within the meaning of Articles 71 and 72 of the Courts Act (OG 150/05 and 16/07) to ensure a uniform, objective and transparent proced re for assessing the work of judges and court advisors. As criteria the number of cases in each of the court branches which a judge should resolve as an average annually is fixed, bearing in mind the complexity of the case and the ways in which particular types of cases can be resolved. The adoptio of the criteria was a precondition for the full application of Article 77 of the Courts Act which lays down the obligation of the president of the court to issue a decision on the fulfilment of judges' duties once a year. In late 2007 the Ministry of Justice developed the project entitled e-statistics as a new IT system for collecting statistics on the work of judges, which enables the mo oring of the fulfilment of judges' duties in line with the Framework Criteria. Fu thermore, in September 2007, the Methodology for the Assessment of Judges’ Performance was adopted. This Methodology elaborates how the work performance of judges is assessed further to the criteria included in the Courts Act, introduces a points system, and standardises the procedure for all judges nd all councils of judges. The president of the State Judiciary Council informed all Councils

1. Implementation framework



Judges that it was necessary for all Councils of Judges to act uniformly and also gave instructions on how Councils of Judges must act t make their work legal and uniform in all the elements which precede the adoption of a decision on the appointment of judges. With respect to strengthening t uniformity, objectivity and transparency of the procedure of assessing the work of state attorneys, further to the Act on Amendments to the Act on the State Attorney's Office of February 2007, a new system for assessing the work of deputy state attorneys is now in place and the system of internal supervision of the work of state attorneys has been improved. In April 2007, the Instru ons for Assessing the Work of Officials in the State Attorney's Office was adopt They have been applied since 1 September 2007. The final result, an evaluation concerning the past performance, has special significance in the appointment and promotion of state attorneys and deputy state attorneys. The State Attorney’s Office issued new Rules of Procedure on Internal Operations of State Attorneys’ Offices which determine the assessment of the work of state attorneys and deputy state attorneys, and security aspects of the work of state attorneys when it comes to secrecy of information and vetting of candidates.

A new Act on Trainees in Judicial Bodies and the Judicial Exam - proposed by the project has already been adopted by Parliament - is one of the project’s activities.

The national anti-corruption program 2006 – 2008 contains as a measure:Provide mechanisms and monitor the implementation of t criteria for the appointment and promotion of judges as laid down by the Courts Act and, if necessary, propose amendments to the said Act.

The Governments program for the mandate 2008 to 2011 includes a chapter for the judiciary. This is quite brief. According to the program the Government shall in the period from 2008 to 2011 implement the following measures:

For ensuring complete transparency in the selection and promotion of the judicial officials, by amendments to the Law on State Judicial Council, by which the number of members of State Judicial Council enlarged by two, President and Deputy President of the Judicial Committee and prolongation of the statute of limitation period in disciplinary procedures against judges.For strengthening of education through further activities of the Judicial Academy.

This project will assist directly to implement the desired changes, as Croatia wishes to open the Chapter 23 for the accession negotiations as soon as possible.

•

•



The project has been set up during the inception phase. Contrary to the terms of reference and contrary to the own policy used by the Judicial Academy the team leader shares an office with the project assistant Dalia Bonefacic.

In the inception report this major risk has been ident ied:

The capacity of the beneficiary is insufficient. Recommendation for immediate action: Relocate an additional judge and an additional prosecutor from their offices full time to the JA having the only task to act full time as counterpart. In addition the relevant section in the JA needs to be staffed with an assistant and a secretary.

The JA saw a substantial turnover of staff during the l st six month including the counterpart.

The former counterpart Judge Govic did not participate in the Steering Committee Meeting (SCM) and visibility event and left her position soon afterwards in April 2008. The terms of reference require:

Project Implementation Unit (PIU)A Project Implementation Unit should be established within the JA in charge of the daily management of the Project. It will consist of the JA (and possibly Ministry of Justice) staff and headed by the Director of the JA or her representative.

In April 2008 Judge Koraljka Bumci was nominated as new counterpart. She continued to act as a judge in criminal matters and her office remained in the county court Zagreb. Priority is given to her work in court (e.g. handling arrest procedures and hearings). Judge Vesna Kresek, judge at the municipal court in Zagreb, joined the JA on 1st September 2008 and, filled the position of Mrs. Govic but did not take over the role as a counterpart. An agreement was found that Mrs. Kresek cooperates with the project in all questions concerning the implementation of training activities.

After the SCM the JA lost its director mid April 2008. The new director Mrs. Ivana Goranic started her work on 19th May 2008. The new director of the JA engaged herself very much and tackled the staff situation immediately.

The assistant to Mr. Govic, Mrs. Belamaric, left the office on 1st of July 2008 and had been replaced immediately by Pavle Vukšic, who became court advisor six months before. The JA ensures that there is no direct r indirect discrimination whatsoever on the ground of his disability and that he is treated equally in

1.1 Institutional set-up and overall project organisation

1.2 Staff and qualifications



regard to his employment (in the sense of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equ treatment in employment and occupation).

Mr. Daniel Hlupic, who had been assisting in the preparation of training materials and who handled IT matters as well, has been replaced y Tomislav Tomicic in August 2008.

The position oft the head of the sector for research a d development, vacant since December 2006 (Z. Pajalic), is still not staffed. The new head of the JA is busy in order to handle the problem and is lobbying for addi onal staff.

Please find an updated overview of the structure of the JA in

In the MoJ, within the PIU, the counterpart for the project changed in July 2008. Ms Nataša Miric (phone 3710-776) [email protected] was nominated as the relevant partner on the working level instead of Marin Jelušic who left the Ministry of Justice.

Monitoring and coordination had been done constantly through the team leader. The coordination with Mrs. Bumci, acting as counterpart in addition to her remaining duties as a judge in court, has been ensured through telephone and agreed meetings (her available time for coordination issues – in addition to the work on the content of the project - is approximately 2 hours per week). Daily cooperation has been ensured with the new colleague Vesna Kresek and herassistant Pavle Vukšic who took the office next to the project office in the JA.

The first SCM took place immediately before the visibility event on 9.4.2008. PIU meetings took place 15.5.2008, 19.6.2008 and 1.9.2008. An additional, extraordinary meeting discussing the procedure of the pproval of experts took place on 15.9.2008. PIU meetings are foreseen once a month with the exception of the summer brake.

The next PIU meeting is foreseen for 13th October 2008, the next SCM is foreseen for 30th October 2008.

This report concerns the activities between 1st of April 2008 until 30th of September 2008. Please refer for the narrative part concerning February and March 2008 to Annex 44 (inception report).

Annex 1.

1.3 Monitoring and coordination agreements

2.Project performance and impact



During the inception phase the project team immediately jumped into component 1 and assisted drafting the new Act on judicial trainees and the bar exam. This Act has already been passed by Parliament. During the discussion of this Act it became clear that the Croatian side doe not wish to make use of the opportunity to introduce a completely new approach based on best practice in other European Countries. The comparative research has been welcomed asa valuable piece of information. Croatia wishes to stay as much as possible within the existing system and to introduce only necessary changes.

The project elaborated a law draft regulating trainees and advisors in order to establish a coherent career system within the judiciary. This idea was not favoured by the working group. Instead the working group decided to continue with the current Croatian system distinguishing sharply between trainees, advisors, judges and prosecutors. Therefore the traine and their training on one side, the professional situation of advisors on the second side and the selection of judges and prosecutors and their career and training on the thirdside are regarded as completely different subjects regulated in different laws and regulations. The project team updated the structure of the projec plan according to these preconditions and developed a detai d project planningadapting it to the changes now apparent to the original project plan.

According to these developments the original headlines of the components, which did not distinguish between trainees, judges and prosecutors and their respective training, are no longer sharp enough. The following table shows the original headlines and underlines the updates made within the structure. The project will focus on the legislation concerning the trainees within component 1, the legislation concerning the selection and career of advisors, judges and prosecutors can be found component 2, the pilot training in component 3 and –unchanged - other activities within component 4.

It is important to state that this is not a change of the content of the project or the results. Instead it is a rather comprehensive and understandable presentation of the activities in the form the Croatian side is distinguishing the components and the relevant laws. The changes were necessary as they lead to a logical structure of the project content and will foster the implementation of the project objectives and results. In the following overview changes are underlined.



Inception report Progress report 1 results

Amendments to the Law on Apprentices and the content of the Bar Exam, as well as the laws regulating the selection and appointment of judges

New Law on Trainees and Bar Exam

Design of a dual system of initial training in the law

Law has been passed by Parliament

Activity 1: In depth assessment of current legal status


Done

Activity 2: Comparative research Activity 2: Comparative research

Done

Activity 3: Selection of Working Group

Activity 3: Selection of Working Group “trainees and bar exam”

Done

Activity 4: Meetings of Working Group

Activity 4: Meetings of Working Group “trainees and bar exam”

Done

Activity 5: Drafting of recommendations and the Law on Apprentices (trainees)

Activity 5: Drafting of the Law on trainees

Done

Activity 6: Round table with presentation of recommendations to the drafted law and necessary changes in other laws

Activity 6: Presentation of the law

In pre-paration

Additional activity 7: Proposal of needed regulations to the new law on trainees and bar exam; Assistance in implementation

In progress

Design of a strategy for the recruitment, career management and training of future judges

Amendments to the laws regulating the selection and appointment of advisors, judges and prosecutors, including a strategy for the recruitment and the career management for advisors, judges and prosecutors

Activity 1: Assessment of future Activity 1: Assessment of In

Component 1 old: Component 1 new:




staffing requirements of Croatian Courts

future staffing requirements of Croatian Courts

progress

Activity 2: Assessment of Recruitment procedures and career options

Activity 2: In depth assessment of current legal status, Assessment of Recruitment procedures and selection criteria

In progress

Activity 3: Selection of Working Group “selection criteria”

Done

Activity 4: Meetings of Working Group “selection criteria”

In progress

Activity 5: drafting amendments to the laws regulating the selection and appointment of judges and prosecutors

In progress

Activity 3: training needs assessment for future judges and prosecutors

(Now in component 3, activity 6)

Activity 4: roundtable with presentations

Activity 6: Roundtable or presentation of recommendations to the necessary changes in laws

Activity 5: Drafting of a training strategy plan

(now in component 3 activity 6)

Activity 7: In depth assessment of current legal status of career options

In progress

Activity 8: Selection of Working Group “career”Activity 9: Meetings of Working Group “career”Activity 10: drafting amendments to the laws regulating the career of judges and prosecutors

Development of a sustainable training system for Apprentices as well as piloting of training modules in selected regions under the responsibility of the Judicial Academy

Development of a sustainable training system for trainees as well as piloting of training modules in selected regions under the responsibility of the Judicial Academy

Activity 1: Development of a Activity 1: Development of a In




functioning structure at the JA to carry out training for future judges and prosecutors

functioning structure at the JA to carry out training for future judges and prosecutors

progress

Activity 2: Development of training curricula for the train thetrainer program

Activity 2: Development of training curricula of the train the trainer program

In progress

Activity 3: Selection of trainers Activity 3: Selection of trainers DoneActivity 4: Implementation of train the trainers program

Activity 4: Implementation of train the trainers program

In progress

Activity 5: Evaluation of trainings Activity 5: Evaluation of trainings

Activity 6: Design of a dual system of apprenticeship

Activity 6: training needs assessment for future judges and prosecutors Drafting of a training strategy planAssist implementing a dual system of initial training

In progress

Activity 7: Presentation of dual system and discussion

Obsolete

Activity 8: Pilot training for 60 trainees and / or advisors

Activity 8: Pilot training for 60 trainees and / or advisors

In pre-paration

(unchanged)Improvement of access to legal information for trainees, court advisors as well as strengthening of training networks

(unchanged)Improvement of access to legal information for trainees, court advisors as well as strengthening of training networks

Activity 1: Analysis of existing ways of communication of the Croatian legal community concerning judicial training

Activity 1: Analysis of existing ways of communication of the Croatian legal community concerning judicial training

In progress

Activity 2: Analysis of accessibility to legal databases and case law


In progress

Activity 3: Implement two study visits to training centres of other European Member States to install a cooperation network for the JA and its staff

Activity 3: Implement two study visits to training centres of other European Member States to install a cooperation network for the JA and its staff

In pre-paration

Component 4 Component 4



The project concentrated on the elaboration of the new law on trainees and bar exam, which has been passed by Parliament already. During the summer the project elaborated a training needs questionnaire and p pared the training of the trainers, which is ongoing. The assessment of the databases has been done. Other parts of the project have been started.

New Law on Trainees and Bar Exam; Design of a dual system of initial training in the law;

The overall objective of component 1 has been to give recommendations to change or develop existing Croatian laws/by-laws regulating the preconditions to become a Croatian trainee (the judges and prosecutors are now dealt with in component 2).

The were: Assessment of structure and duration of Court trainees pDrafting a Law on TraineesEstablishing the Bar Exam in this draft to become a pr condition for applying to become judge or prosecutorEstablishing general requirements for the Bar exam

This activity has been done in regard to the trainees lready in the inception phase. The project is still partly missing information concerning the selection criteria for judges and prosecutors (now shifted to component 2).

This activity has been done in regard to the trainees lready in the inception phase.

This activity has been done in regard to the trainees lready in the inception phase.

2.1. Activities planned and implemented

2.1.1 General Activities

2.1.2 Component 1 new:

specific objectives


Activity 2: Comparative research



•••

•



The working group met on 24th of April (subject bar exam, Short Term ExpertBucic and team leader Dr. Deville), 13th of May (instead of 8th of May, with Dr. Deville) and drafted intensively for the whole day on 26th, 27th and 29th May 2008 (together with the project’s Short Term Experts Luters-Thuemmel, Bucic,Bedalov and Dr. Deville). In addition an explanation of the draft was elaborated. Another meeting of the working group originally agreed for 12th June 2008, did not take place, as the law draft needed to be delivered to the MoJ on 1st June 2008 already. The project managed to keep this deadline and delivered the law including the motivation and explanation which is used to present laws to Parliament.

The EC delegation requested the MoJ to deliver in writing political guidelines to the working group. These guidelines have not been handed out neither to the project nor to the working group.However the working group prepared the draft law.

The original activity 6 in component 1 (Round table with presentation of recommendations to the drafted law and necessary changes in other laws) needed not be implemented, as all relevant stakeholders with the exception of the Universities had been represented in the working group drafting the law.

A successful meeting with the Management of the Law Faculty of the University of Zagreb has taken place on 3rd June 2008. In the course of preparation for this meeting, the deanship was made familiar with the bill n writing. The dean and two further professors were open-minded about the intended transformations by the submitted bill. Especially the regulations with re to the state examination met their approval. The aspects of objectivity, transpare cy and equality of chances were not only accepted but were highly welcomed.

The faculty was also open-minded about the question of cooperating in the set-up of possible parameters for the admission examination for which the students may even be prepared in an “exam-accompanying” way. They doubted that suitable practitioners could be found who train the trainers in terms of this transformation process and who could assist the structured preparatory service with working groups.

Additional feed-back has been requested from a Croatian advocate who had not been member of the working group. He gave some comment on the structure and law drafting questions which had been forwarded to the MoJ.

Activity 5: Drafting of recommendations and the Law on Apprentices (trainees)

Activity 6: presentation of recommendations



More presentations could not be implemented, as the law draft on the law on trainees and the bar exam, elaborated with the assistance of this project, immediately went into the cabinet and has been passed by parliament already.As a substitute the project proposed to the Minister to inform law students at the law faculty at the University of Zagreb about the new law and to discuss it prior to the finalization of the needed regulations. The project suggested such an event together with the dean of the law faculty for mi ctober.However the project received the information that it is so far unclear if and when the Minister or somebody else wishes to implement such an a ivity on behalf ofthe MoJ. It might be that the Minister wishes to include the subject in one of the regular activities done from time to time at all Universities in the country and that the project should not be considered to be in cha such activities.

The Academy of Advocates is planning a presentation of the new law on 28th

October 2008 together with the JA to inform young advocates. This activity is supported by the project, but will be implemented by the Academy of Advocates.

The new law and the upcoming regulation have been presented to the group who is trained to become future trainers and will be p nted to the future mentors. The law is placed on the web-side of the JA.

As there is no more room for the presentation of recom endations or the law we consider this activity to be done.

The MoJ asked the project to elaborate a new law within the nception phase already and to deliver it at short notice. By doing so the working group had to introduce the possibility to regulate details in regul tions. The Croatian counterpart requested the project to assist in drafting the needed regulations as well and to assist as much as wanted with the implementation. These are additional activities which have not been mentioned in the ToR. In order to guarantee sustainability the team accepted the request and added this additional activity which is a logical continuation of he original mission.

For this activity a working group has been selected to elaborate the regulations. Members from the Croatian side are:

Koraljka Bumci, Criminal Law judge, County Court, ZagrebIvana Djuras, Deputy Prosecutor, State Attorney’s Office ZagrebGoranka Barac – Rucevic, Civil Law judge, County Court, Zagrebmr. sc. Ante Galic, judge at the Administrative Court, Zagreb

Additional activity 7: Proposal of needed regulations the new law on trainees and bar exam; Assistance in implementation



Marko Petrak, professor of Roman Private Law, Law Faculty, University of ZagrebMarinka Jelic, Head of staff department for legal matters, Ministry of JusticeVesna Kresek, Judge at the JA and head of department f r judicial trainees

The project elaborated already three proposals for regulations. Meetings started on 29th and 30th September 2008.

The new law foresees a . Toguarantee sustainability the project has been requested to assist in developing the entry test for trainees. The selection of trainees is in part governed by Arti e 5 and Article 7 of the new Law on Trainees.

The project has not yet discussed how to implement the entry test. These are some of the ideas that will be discussed: Details of the selection procedure are going to be governed by a special ordinance. Applicants for trainee vacancies must have obtained a University degree in law. As for the moment the legal education offered by the Universities in Croatia emphasizes teaching a very thorough and broad theoretical knowledge. On the other hand at niversity practical approaches are not the rule and not profound enough in order to train the students in practical approaches to law and in case-solving techniques or in a mentality necessary to be able to handle large amount of cases as prosecutors and judges are demanded today.

These preconditions result in a situation that practical knowledge and thinking can only to a limited extent be taken for granted among the applicants. The test should be designed to find out the applicants´ interest in court p actice and reality, their capability to work practically, to appl his/her knowledge to a concrete, given case and try to find a reasonable solution based upon the knowledge of law acquired during the university studies.

Here the emphasis should not be laid upon theoretic solutions, but answeringquestions and deciding a case within a short period of time. Moreover the candidate should be put under some kind of stress (pre re to pass, limited time, high amount of questions) in order to find out their ability to cope with the difficulty of deciding in difficult situations.

The administering body will have to face a large numbe of applicants – maybe even some hundreds – who will have to be dealt with by a limited number of staff. Bearing this in mind and with the aim of a reasonable consumpt of human resources only, the test ought to be easily corrected with a minimal use of staff and easily updated if necessary. The test needs to be practice- andcase-solving oriented, yet easy to administer. It will be necessary to create a

selection procedure for the selection of trainees



highly standardised kind of questions with answers easy to check without time-consuming evaluation of essays or other longer works of prose to achieve this goal.

Therefore is seems appropriate to use a multiple-choice kind of test with an emphasis on short, easy-to-understand cases with three or four alternative answers to choose from or only words or numbers to be put in. Furthermore it seems advisable to create a mixture of different questions, those easy and quick to answer (“which is the body that brings in the indictment”) to those which demand the use of a law text-book (“A has intruded into the flat of B against B´s will. He has taken away his TV-set and broken the bathroom mirror. Give the titles of the offences committed with their numbers in the penal code.”).

In addition it has to be borne in mind though that only a large var y of questions for one area of law offers the candidate the chance to show his/her full knowledge, on the other hand allows candidates who mig have weaknesses in one area of the questions asked to balan these shortcomings in other fields. It therefore seems appropriate to offer a high number of questions – for example 40 – for which candidates only have short time to answer each.

For the implementation of the new law such an entry test has to be designed. Members of the working group developing the entry test for future trainees are

Marina Duijmovic-Vukovic, state secretary ministry of justiceMarko Petrak, professor of Roman Private Law, Law Faculty, University of ZagrebGoranka Barac – Rucevic, Civil Law judge, County Court, ZagrebDijana Kovacevic – Remenaric, Head of staff department for legal matters, Ministry of JusticeIlinka Lisonek, public notary, ZagrebDragan Novosel / Josip Cule, State Attorney Office of Republic of CroatiaDamir Kos, Supreme Court of Republic of Croatiamr. sc. Ante Galic, judge at the Administrative Court, ZagrebMrs. N. Plevko, Commercial Court, Zagreb

The implementation of the entry test in reality has not n requested yet as an additional activity of the project. However, the time planning in January 2009 will allow for some flexibility in order to be able to react on such a demand.

Additional input for the implementation of the law will be given in regard to the training of mentors and examiners in the new bar exam.

2.1.3 Component 2: Amendments to the laws regulating the sel ion and appointment of advisors, judges and prosecutors, including a strategy for



As the trainees are covered by component 1, the main objective of component 2 is now to create a general strategy for the selection and recruitment of advisors and future judges and prosecutors bearing in mind the actual staffing needs of the Croatian judiciary.

The are: Assessment of recruitment procedures and career options for advisors and futures judges and prosecutorsEstablishing objective criteria for the selection process of future judges and prosecutorsDrafting changes for other relevant laws as the Law on Courts and the Law on State Judicial CouncilEstablishing of selection criteria for future judges and prosecutorsEstablishing a system which offers the possibility to nominate judges and prosecutors whenever needed and foreseen in the budgetEstablishing a proper initial training, selection and uation procedure to abrogate or reduce or abolish the five years probation period

The Croatian judiciary is in the process of establishing a system to calculate the staffing needs. Unfortunately relevant data are not yet fully availab e.

The number of trainees is not calculated in advance. There is no connection between the “needs” of trainees and the number of employed trainees. The state budget allows a certain amount to be spent for trainees. With this amount the trainees in the system are paid. If a trainee passed the exam and leaves the system, the court or the state attorney’s office is re sting to employ a new trainee. This request is granted if the budget is still sufficient.

This system is consistent with the professional system. Judicial trainees do not necessarily become advisors nor later judges or prosecutors. In the current system the state shares the burden to educate the legal profession with other professions as the investment in the education of the judicial trainees is not regarded as an investment in the judiciary, but in the education of all legal professions. This attitude has not been changed during the project.

The project team proposed to link the career of the judicial trainee to the career of the advisor and the judge and prosecutor by introducing some regulations into the new law on judicial trainees and bar exam. This proposal has not been accepted. As there is no link between the staffing of advisors, judges and

the recruitment and the career management for advisors, judges and prosecutors

specific objectives

Activity 1: Assessment of future staffing requirements of Croatian Courts

•

•

•

••

•



prosecutors it is not necessary to calculate the numbe of trainees according to the staffing needs of the judiciary as long as the system as such produces a sufficient number of candidates for future judges and rosecutors. As this has been the case in the past there is no need to change t system or to calculate staffing needs for trainees in a different or more sophisticated way.

The number of advisors is not pre-calculated as well. So far there is no connection between the “needs” of advisors and the num r of employed trainees. There are as many advisors as the budget allows employing.Vacancies are filled if the budget allows the filling. The project could not find a link between the budget and the needs of advisors.

The number of judges and prosecutors are theoretically calculated based on an average of existing cases within the last three years and the existing work load. However, the exact number of existing cases is not available completely as the case management system is not working yet. Therefore basic information for the calculation of staffing needs is currently missing.

The work load had been fixed by the minister upon prop sal of the Supreme Court. In addition to the document describing the work load for judges as reported in the inception report (Annexes 20 and 21 to the inception report) the project assumes that there are similar documents for the Prosecution officesand the Misdemeanour Courts. This information is still missing. No information is available how the work load – distinguishing different types of cases – hasbeen fixed and if judges and prosecutors have checked and evaluated theneeded time and the real work load for typical cases in practice.

Without obtaining further information it is difficult to consult further on this activity covering the future staffing needs.

The draft action plan of the judicial reform strategy in the version of the draft 5th

June 2008 describes the situation of the judiciary as follows:

In terms of the procedure for appointing judges, further opportuniti s to strengthen the role of the State Judiciary Council and the Councils of Judges will be re-evaluated, so that they will be able to interview all ndidates proposed for the position of judge. In order to ensure uniformity in the procedures of appointment of judges carried out by Cou cils of Judges, amendments to the Courts Act will be proposed. These amendments will stipulate the adoption of the Rules of Procedure of Councils of Judges, which

Activity 2: In depth assessment of current legal status, Assessment of recruitment procedures and selection criteria



are to regulate the procedure of appointment of judges. This means that the government does not intend to include objective and transparent selection criteria for judges in the law on courts. This amendment to the law on courts has been passed by Parliament in the last week of September.

In the next progress report 2 the project will check and assess the final version of the action plan.

In regard to the current legal status the project constantly collected more material and found:

Concerning the appointment of trainees:

Pravilnik o sastavu I nacinu rada natjecajne komisije za popunjavanje slobodnih radnih mjesta pripravnika u pravosudnim tijelima

Rules regulating the composition and method of operation of the selection commission for filling trainee vacancies in judicial bodies

This is the old regulation on the selection of trainees which is now replaced by the new law on judicial trainees. According to the old regulation candidates had to submit a Curriculum Vitae and a certificate containing exam grades and evidence on fulfilment of eligibility criteria. Those candidates should have been selected who will be able to autonomously perform duties and fu ions in judicial bodies after having completed their training uring the probationaryperiod.

Concerning the appointment of advisors:

Uredba o raspisivanju i provedbi javnog natjecaja i internog oglasa u državnoj službi

Regulation on vacancy announcement and recruitment thr ugh public vacancy advertisements and internal notices in the civil service

Annex 2 HR

Annex 3 EN

Annex 4 HR

Annex 5 EN



This regulation in its version of 2008 (NN 13/08) regu es that vacancies in government bodies shall be filled through public advertisement of the positions (civil service recruitment) and through internal notices. All candidates have to take a test. For regular recruitment, the test shall c nsist of a verification of the candidate's knowledge of the basics of the constitutio al order of the Republic of Croatia and the basics of the administrative area for which the vacancy is announced. To obtain a position as an advisor, it is helpful that the trainee is still employed by the state – a possibility that is foreseen in the new law on trainees for successful candidates as well. In this case of an nternal notice, the test shall consist of a verification of the candidate's knowledge, ability and skills significant for the tasks required by the position for which he has applied.

Zakon o državnim službenicima – procišceni (2008: NN 27/08) Civil Servants Act with the amendments of 2008 (NN 27/08 -

annex 24 new to the inception report had been the version of 2006).

Concerning judges and prosecutors:

Konacni prijedlog zakona o izmjenama i dopunama zakona o sudovima = Law on Courts – amendments have just been passed by Parliament

Zakon o sudovima – consolidated with proposed amendments Law on courts – consolidated with proposed amendmends

Poslovnik Državnog sudbenog vijeca

Rules of procedure for the State Judicial Council

Poslovnik Državnoodvjetnickog vijecaRules of procedure for the State Attorney’s Council

Having these materials and the materials identified in the inception report in mind the project requested the counterpart to provide us with an updated overview of the actual practice concerning appointment procedures and selection criteria in Croatia. This has been delegated to the assistant PavleVukšic who prepared for the project the following overwiev:

For selecting quality judicial staff (trainees as well as advisors), it is extremely important that impartial and transparent iteria are established from the very start of their judicial caree . The selection procedure begins with a public invitation to potential candidates to submit their applications.

Annex 6 HRAnnex 7 EN

Annex 8 HR


Annex 11 HR

Annex 12 EN


“Appointment procedure of judges and state attorneys



In order to further improve the transparency and impar iality of trainee selection procedures, the new Act on Trainees in Judicial Bodies and the Judicial Exam (new measure No. 6) will passed in 2008. After this, other regulations on judicial trainees and court advisors will be amended. The act is intended to furth improve the objectivity of admissions criteria for the judicial service and to ensure that the best candidates are recruited. The new regulation should precisely define the rules and criteria for the selection and recruitment of graduate jurists as trainees in judicia bodies. This includes drawing up the list of candidates, testing, o nising the system of training, and monitoring the trainees' performance during the traineeship period. It will also lay down clear and transparent criteria for the evaluation and selection trainees as core personnel from which court advisors, and later ju ges, are recruited. In this way, a mechanism will be created which will ensure that the best graduate jurists are co-opted into the system. To them, the state should guarantee a certain degree of long-term tenure of service within judicial institutions, depending upon their performance during traineeship or their service as cou dvisors.

Judicial trainees and judicial advisors are civil serv s, so their admission to civil service is subject to the appropriate provisions of the Civil Service Act. The articles 45-52 of said act are correspondingly applied[1].

The procedure of the appointment of judicial trainees s regulated by the („Official Gazette“, no. 54/74, 29/78, 13/90, in further text: LAB), in accordance with („Official Gazette“ No. 92/05, 107/07 i 27/08, in further text: CSA).

for judicial trainees are defined according to the Plan of Admission of the Ministry of Justice, created after all courts give their suggestions about he capacities they have for the related year. The Ministry then brin final decision about the Plan, and the final Plan is published in Official Gazette.

For the , Ministry of Justice announces public vacancy competition, published in

[1 ] These articles encompass the filling of vacant posts, admission procedures, conditions for admission, bars to admission and assignment, verificat of the list of candidates and testing, admission to state service and assignment to posts

Law about Apprentencies and Bar Exam

Civil Servants Act

Quotas of posts available

reception and appointment of new trainees



the Official Gazzette (Art. 3/1 LAB). Candidates' CVs and grades achieved during studies are considered (overall achievement as well as the grades from particular subjects). The lenght of studying and international competitions (such as moot urt, for example) are also taken into consideration. The interview with the candidates is preformed by the President of the Court or his Deputy. The President then assembles official opinion about the candidates, that is sent to the ministry. Decision abo the acceptance is delivered from the Minister of Justice, d the candidates have the right to appeal. After the decisio becomes fully valid, the President of the related court is issuing the Decision about the distribution to a working place.

The imperative prerequisite that a trainee could become a court advisor is that he/she has passed the bar exam after his traineeship has finished.

After this has been achieved, old legislative predicted .

One is provided in the Art. 6/1 LAB: according to it, there was also the possibility for a trainee to become appointed to a corresponding post of court advisor if such a post was available and if trainees would meet „elegibility criteria“ for ch a post.

Second procedure is based on („Official Gazette“ No. 92/05, 107/07 i 27/08, in further text: CSA) and Croatian Goverment's

(„Official Gazette“, No. 8/06, 8/07, 13/08, in furthe text: Regulation).

The latter regulations predicted that posts for court dvisors are, after being officialy proclaimed and planned in accordance with the procedure named above (see Paragraph 3 of this document), announced by the public vacancy competition of the Ministry of Justice, published in the Official Gazzette - according to Art. 45. sec. 1 of the CSA and Art. 4. sec. 1. of the Regulation.

Candidates are then submitted to the procedure that co ists of written test and interview, provided in the articles 9 – 14. of the Regulation. The written test has 2 parts: 10 questions from the Constitutional Law and 10 questions from the specific field candidate is applying to. Knowledge of foreign language and computer skills can also be tested (Art 11., sec. 1 an 2). For every part of this testing candidate can achieve a res lt from 1 to

two possible ways of judicial trainees becoming court advisors

Civil Servants Act

Regulation on Announcing of Public Vacancy Competition and Internal Advertisement in the vil Service



10 points, and the minimum of 6 points per test is required to proceed to interview phase. If the more than 20 candidates has achieved a result sufficient for proceeding to interview, then 10 best candidates are selected (Art. 12. of the Regulation, sec. 1-3.).

The interview itself is focused on interests, professional goals, an the motivation of the candidates, with the same number and minimum of points needed (Art. 13).

Upon all these results, final result-list is formed (Art. 14.). Psycho-test can also be performed for 5 most succesful candidates, if the body that candidates are appyling for has such regulation in its internal Ordinance (Art. 15).

, which is initially confirming the list of applicants that will approach the testing. Its members are appointed by the chief executive of the body that is receiving new candidates (Art. 7/1 of Regulation).Commission itself consists of 2 members elected by the president of the body that is receiving new candidates, and representative of central state authority responsible for civil service fairs (according to Art. 51 / 1 of CSA).

Commision then sends the report about executed procedure to the chief executive of the body, with the final results' list (and the results of psycho-test if it's been performed). Chief executive then announces the final decision about the chosen candidates.

Evaluation of court advisors. After the Courts Act ent into force in December 2005 and prescribed the types of proceedings and cases that court advisors are authorised to handle independently, the Ministry of Justice instructed all urts to include the results of independent work by court advisors in their statistical reports. Furthermore, in inspecting the wo of judicial administrations, the inspection service of the Ministr of Justice is required to pay special attention to the performance of court advisors. Since the performance of court advisors is t us monitored and assessed separately, it provides a basis for a fair evaluation of their entire previous work when they apply for judicial vacancies.

Articles 73 and 74 of the Law on Courts stipulates con ons for of a judge.

The test-procedure mentioned above is performed in front of special Commission

appointment



To be appointed a judge, one must be a citizen of the public of Croatia, have a university law degree, pass the bar exam, have work experience as required by the Courts Act, and meet the professional and expressed work qualifications.A person may be appointed a judge at the misdemeanour nd municipality courts after passing the bar exam and have specific work experience. Either one must have worked two years as an advisor in a court or another judicial body; or worked two years as an attorney, public notary, public notary’s assessor, r university professor or university assistant in the area of legal science;[2] or he must have worked in other legal jobs at least four rs. After passing the bar exam, working as a trainee at court, a state attorney’s office, attorney’s office, or public notary’s office is considered work on other legal jobs.[3]

The procedure of appointing judges and relieving them duty is conducted by the State Judicial Council, in accordance with the Courts Act and the State Judicial Council Act.[4]

Posts for new judges are announced by the Ministry, according to the procedure provided in Article 16 of the

(„Official Gazette“ No. 58/93, 49/99, 129/00, 150/05, in further text: LSJC). The Ministry of Justice, based on the proposal put forward by the President of a court and in accordance with the Framework Criteria for the Work of Judges, makes a public announcement for a judicial vacancy and forwards the collected applications to the respective ncils of judges for their opinion (about judicial council provisions, see

, „Official Gazette“ No. 150/05, 16/07,particularly Art. 38. – 42.).

The councils of judges[5] are special judicial self-governing bodies set up at county courts (to cover a county court and municipal courts under the jurisdiction of that county court), at the High Commercial Court (to cover the High Commercial Co rt and all commercial courts), and the High Misdemeanour Court (to cover the High Misdemeanour Court and all misdemeanour courts). The members of these councils of judges are judges of the mentioned courts elected by secret ballot among the judges themselves.

Law on State Judicial Council

Law on Courts

[2 ] Courts Act (OG 150/05, 16/07), art. 74, para. 1.[3 ] Courts Act, art. 74, para. 2.[4 ] Courts Act, arts. 16-19. [5 ] The competence and duties of councils of judges are r gulated in the Courts Act by Articles 37-50.



The functions of the councils of judges for the Admini trative Court and the Supreme Court are performed by a session of all the judges of each of these courts. In giving their opinions on the applicants the councils of judges also take into accou the assessment of their judicial record. Such assessments re made, according to Article 79 Para. 2 of the Courts Act, whe udge is assigned to another court or if appointed to a permanent judicial duty. In making their assessments the councils of judges ought to take into account all the above outlined parameters prescribed by Article 77[6] of the Courts Act and in compliance with the Methodology for Assessment of Judges’ Performance. Although not required by law, it has become an established practice of the councils of judges to have an interview with the applicants before giving their opinion of them.

The structure and data that should be contained within the opinion of the authorized judicial council is regulated in Art. 17. and 17.a. LSJC. For the purpose of forming their opinion, the council of judges may request information about the applicants from the president of the court where the applicants served or from the president of the next higher court, provided that the candidate has already served as a judge, court advisor, or judicial trainee. If the applicant has never served in the judiciary, it may also approach other bodies which could provide evant information concerning the general and special requirements for a judicial post. It can ask the Judicial Academy if a udge participated as a lecturer there or attended an advanc d training course. If a candidate's performance has already been ssessed, the council of judges will take such an assessment into account in forming its opinion, and if none is available it will obtain them from the competent council of judges.

In practice, such opinion is usually based on evaluati of performance and efficiency (according to CSA Art. 82.-89.), that is delivered by the President of the Department in which urt advisor is working after the special report on work and efficienc for every court advisor is created. These special reports are based on Ordinance of the Central State Office for Administration („Official Gazette“ 78/06, 128/06, related to the provision of Art. 84/2 CSA). The workload statistics –official data from the Ministry of Justice – are also used as additional parameter, as well as attending expert seminars and workshops, and eventual publication on scientific work.

[6 ] Article 77 deals with the fulfilment of judge's duties.



The council’s opinion of the candidates is presented in writing. The councils of judges have to present their opinions n the applicants to the Ministry of Justice within 60 days. All the received candidates' applications and the opinions of the council of judges on them are forwarded by the Ministry of Justice to the State Judicial Council, which in turn forwards the applications submitted by qualified candidates to the Judiciary Committee of the Croatian Parliament for their written opinion. Finally, the State Judicial Council issues it judicial appointment decision.

Final appointment of the new judge is regulated in Art . LSJC.

The SJC is an independent and collective body composed of judges, lawyers, and university professors as independent judicial professionals whose independence derives from the institutional independence and autonomy of law firms, universities, nd the judiciary. This also makes the SJC institutionally protected from undue influences. On the other hand, the SJC's appointment decisions are subject to control by the Administrative and Constitutional Courts which are concerned not only about formal criteria, but also about the existence of substantial easons for an appointment to be denied to other candidates.

In the judicial appointment procedure, Articles 13-16 of the new SJC Rules of Procedure (OG 13/07) shall apply.

In deciding on the appointment of judges, the SJC shall consider all data gathered for every candidate: the Minister’s proposal, the opinion of the Council of judges, and the opinion of t Justice Committee of the Croatian Parliament, i.e. the assessm on the performance of judicial duties, all data on the work of the judge, statistics on both quantitative and qualitative results, reasons why the judge might not have achieved the results expected from him, and other specific circumstances. The decision on appointment is adopted by a public vote of all members. Public voting contributes to the transparency of the work of SJC, but also emphasizes the individual responsibility of every member of SJC for its adopted decisions. Sessions of the SJC at which such judicial ppointment decisions are open to the public regardless of the typ of appointment.

Some changes in the SJC's appointment procedure have been introduced. Thus the SJC can invite the candidates to nterview as part of the appointment procedure. In this case, all candidates



who fulfil formal conditions are called to the intervi w. The invitation must state the reason for the requested interview and note that the candidates are free to present to the SJC during the interview any information relevant for the assessment f their professional competence. Furthermore, the SJC may invite to its session the presidents of the councils of judges which assess t e candidates to present their opinions and assessments. sed on collected data and interviews with the candidates, intended to establish facts which are relevant to the appointment n but are not evident from data earlier submitted to the SJC, the ascertains for every individual candidate to which ext he or she meets the general and special requirements for appointment to a judicial post.

The appointment decisions contain a general statement and an exact explication of reasons why a particular candidat has been chosen. Such decisions are sent to all the candidates nd are subject to a review by the Administrative Court in proceedings involving the protection of constitutionally defined human and civil rights and freedoms (Article 66 of the Administrative Disputes Act) and, in some cases, by the Constitutional Court. The s atements of the judicial appointment decisions are published in the Official Gazette.

During the appointment procedure referred to in Article 74, paragraph 8 of the Courts Act, data about the representation of national minority members shall be obtained from the ministry in charge of justice affairs. The information required is contained in the Constitutional Act on National Minorities, art. 22, para.2.

At their first appointment, when assuming judicial duties for the first time, judges are appointed for a five-year term. The rationale is to make the system of judicial appointments capable of reacting in cases where the appointed judges are not able to fulfil their obligations and responsibilities. As judges are evaluated twice during their term of office and all the guidelines in ticle 77 of the Courts Act and the Methodology for Assessment of Judges’ Performance are taken into consideration, any arbitrariness is thus avoided. This balance is also due to the fact that long-term appointments are decided by the SJC as well.

Concerning judges and state attorneys who were appointed for a five-year term at the time of their first appointment, a transparent mechanism with objective criteria is now in place for the evaluation of the performance of their duties during this five-year term. This



makes the basis for the decision on appointment to permanent duty.

The evaluation of judges who were appointed for the first time originally has been prescribed in Articles 79-87 of the Law on Courts. The project will check amendments and report the most recent development in the next progress report 2.

Any judge being appointed to permanent duty must be assessed by the council of judges for the first time on expiration of two years of his term and additionally, in the appointment proce ure for another court, when the judge is appointed permanently, and when he applies for a post of President of the court. The president of the court must notify the State Judicial Council six months before the expiration of the five-year term that a decision on permanent appointment must be made.[7] When making the assessment, the council of judges must take into account all criteria specified in the Courts Act,[8] and the judge is then evaluated according to the criteria laid down in the Methodology for Assessment of Judges’ Performance.[9]

The decision on evaluation of a judge’s work is made i writing and it must include reasons for the decision. It is de ed to the respective judge, the president of the court where the judge works, the president of the Supreme Court, and the Ministry of justice.[10]

The judge may submit an appeal against the decision within eight days to the special council of the Supreme Court.

In order to improve the transparency of the SJC’s work, the SJC web page was opened to the public in February 2008 (www.dsv.pravosudje.hr). This web page regularly announces decisions on judicial appointments, relief from duty, and disciplinary proceedings in Croatia. E-queries about the work and activity of the State Judicial Council can be sent.

State Attorney's trainees and advisors are civil servants, as well, so the same regulation are applied for them as well as for judicial trainees and advisors (see above).

[7 ] Courts Act, art. 88, para. 3.[8 ] Article 77 of the Courts Act deals with fulfilment o f judicial du ies, in particular: whether the judge issued the number of decisions he was supposed to issue under the Framework Criteria, whether he complied with the time limits fixed for making decisions, what decisions were made in the appeals proceedings, whether he participated in professional development, whether he was a lecturer, whether he published any professional or scientific papers, wheth as deployed to work at a higher court. [9 ] Courts Act, art. 79.[1 0 ] Courts Act, art. 84.



The procedure of the appointment of state attorney's t ainees and advisors was regulated by the

(„Official Gazette“, no. 54/74, 29/78, 13/90, in further text: LAB), in accordance with („Official Gazette“ No. 92/05, 107/07 i 27/08, in further text: CSA). Important act i also the

(Official Gazette number 121/07), because it provides sistematization of work posts and defines number of vacant positions for

. The proposal of this document needs to be verified f the MoJ.

For the , after the proposal of related SAO (usually MSAO, since they are involved in education of trainees), Ministry of Justice announces ublic vacancy competition, published in the Official Gazzette (Art. 1 LAB), Candidates' CVs and grades achieved during studies are considered (overall achievement as well as the grades from particular subjects). Test is also performed, containing from the 10 questions related to the way of work and functioning of State Attorney Office. he interview with the candidates is preformed by the responsible State Attorney, and he assembles official opinion about each candidate, in which he has to point out certain candidate and give reasons for his r commendation. This is sent to the MoJ, which forms the commision assembled from one judge of the Supreme Court, State Attorney of the RCSAO, and one representative of MoJ. The decision about the acce nce is delivered from the Minister of Justice, and the candidates have the right to appeal.

Trainees are having the work-tracking record (diary) that is supervised by their mentor and, according to this, the evaluation of performance and efficiency (according to CSA Art. 82.-89.) is given by the first superior civil servant – Deputy State Attorney of related level, after the special report on work and efficiency for every court advisor is created. These special reports are based on Ordinance the Central State Office for Administration („Official Gazette“ 78 06, 128/06, related to the provision of Art. 84/2 CSA). The State Attorney of the related level gives the final mark. The same procedire is provided for State Attorney Advisors.

The imperative prerequisite that a trainee could become a state attorney's advisor is that he/she has passed the bar xam after his traineeship has finished.

After the proposal of related SAO, MoJ announces public vacancy competition, published in the Official Gazette (Art. 3/1 LAB).

Law about Apprentencies and Bar Exam

Civil Servants Act

Ordinance on Internal Conduct in State Attorneys' offices

both trainees and advisors

reception and appointment of new trainees



Candidates' CVs and collected work evaluation grades a eved during traineeship ( ) in SAO are considered. If the candidate passed thru some other institution's traineeship programme or was already working on some other post, his work evaluatio grades from the related institution are considered. Interwiev is also performed by the State Attorney of the related level, as well as the representative of the State Office for Administration (in bigger SAO, the Commission is assembled). State Attorney of the related level then decides about the final acceptance of the candidates and issues the fina decision.

The procedure of appointing SA advisors into Deputies of related State Attorneys, is regulated in the („Official Gazette“ No. 51/01, 16/07, 20/07 - Art. 60.-64a.), as well as in the Art. 98., 103 -107a. (articles about work and procedure of State Attorney's Council).

The Act gives clear criteria for the appointment of st te attorneys and deputy state attorneys.[11]

Article 63 provides for conditions for the appointment of deputy state attorneys:

-Any person may be appointed a deputy state attorney in a municipal state attorney’s office if he or she passed the bar exam and has worked as an advisor in a state attorney’s off or other judicial body for no less than two years; worked as a practicing lawyer, notary public, or notary public’s legal staff prisjednik-assessor) for no less than two years; taught legal sub s at the law school; or having passed the bar exam, worked for o less than four years on other legal functions. -Any person may be appointed a deputy state attorney in a county state attorney’s office if he or she has been an official in a judicial body exercising a judicial function for no less than eight years; has worked as a practicing attorney, notary pub c, or a notary public’s legal staff for no less than eight yea ; has taught legal subjects at the law school for no less than ten year or having passed the bar exam, has worked for no less tha twelve years on other legal functions.-Any person may be appointed a deputy state attorney in the State Attorney’s Office of the Republic of Croatia if he or she has been an official in a judicial body exercising a judicial function for no less than fifteen years; has worked as a practicing attorney or a notary public for no less than fifteen years; or has worked as a university

see last paragraph

Act on State Attorney's Office

[1 1 ] Articles 47-64a refer to appointment and dismissal.



professor or an associate professor in the legal sciences for no less than fifteen years. -When appointing deputy state attorneys, account shall e taken that national minorities are represented in line with he provisions from the Constitutional Act on the Rights of National Minorities.[12]

-When national minority members file their application r deputy state attorney vacancies, they may invoke the rights they are entitled to under the Constitutional Act on the Rights of National Minorities.

The State Attorney's Council abides by the provisions of the Act on the State Attorney's Office and proceeds with an ap ntment procedure only after all required information has been collected about the candidates' previous work. This provides a sound basis for making the appointment decision. Collected information contains opinions on the candidates given by the state attorney's offices where the candidates are employed, the board of state attorneys' offices, and a senior state attorney.

An interview is conducted with each candidate at the state attorney's office where the candidate seeks a position. The State Attorney's Council may also call the candidate for an rview. For each candidate a security screen is performed, and data on his or her work record are collected. If a candidate comes from the state attorney's system, a review of his or her previous wor is required. This review would not be confined to pure statistics, but based on insight into the cases he or she has worked. ports are filed using all this information and then submitted to the State Attorney's Council.

Reviews are likewise done every two years at all state attorneys' offices by the State Attorney's Office of the Republic of Croatia. On these occasions, too, notes of the work of candidates must betaken into account when opinions are given on individu l candidates.

A deputy state attorney elected for the first time to state attorney’s office shall be assessed each year. Other deputies shall be assessed every three years.State attorneys shall be assessed every two years.[13]

In the latest amendments to the Act on the State Attorney's Office, special emphasis is placed on the need for quality evaluation of the work of state attorneys. Now all the segments of the work of

[1 2 ] Constitutional Act on the Rights of National Minoriti s, art. 22, para. 2 (OG 155/02).[1 3 ] State Attorney' s Act, art. 64a.



state attorneys and deputy state attorneys are examined. The Instructions for Assessing the Work of Officials in the State Attorney's Office was adopted in April 2007 and applied since 1 September 2007. Furthermore the State Attorney's Office of the Republic of Croatia has adopted new Rules of Procedure on Internal Operations of State Attorneys’ Offices. These new Rules of Procedure especially regulate the monitoring of the work of state attorneys[14] and deputy state attorneys and the security aspects of the work of state attorneys' offices in terms of data secrecy and security screening of candidates. The resu t of such a meticulous approach to the evaluation of state attorneys and deputy state attorneys is an assessment that clearly describes all the aspects of the work of state attorneys and their deputies and measures the degree of the success or failure of their work.

The assessment of previous work is especially important in the appointment process. If all other requirements are satisfied equally, preference in the appointment decision shall be given to candidates who in the last two evaluations scored better.[15] The importance of the evaluation is illustrated by the fact that a state attorney or deputy state attorney who at the last eval on was not favourably evaluated [16] cannot be eligible for promotion or appointment at a higher state attorney's office. Such n approach to the candidates' work record, based on transparent a d elaborate criteria, allows an objective insight into t eal merits of a candidate.

Role of collegiate state body of related state attorney's off is important. It consists out of all members of related s ate attorneys office (all Deputy State Attorneys, State Attorney). It gives final recommendation to the State Attorney's Council for the certain candidate, after voting and criticizing the related SA opinion about candidates he's supported, as well as checking candidates CVs and interviewing them. The official records are kept.

Laws regulating this subject:

The Courts Act

,

-

[1 4 ] Chapter III - Articles 139-143.[1 5 ] Article 64, paragraph 2 of the Act on State A ttorney's Office reads:“When appointed the candidate who have been subsequent ce or several times graded as referred to under Article 67, Para 2, item 3 hereof shall be prior zed.”Item 3, Para 2 of Article 67 reads:-conscientious, professional and orderly performance of state attorney’s work,[1 6 ] This is specified in the Act on State Attorney, art. 67, para. 1, item 3.



The Rules of Procedure for the State Judicial CouncilState Judicial Council ActMethodology for Assessment of Judges’ PerformanceThe Civil Service ActRules of Procedure on Internal Operations of State Attorneys’ OfficesThe Act on State Attorneys Rules of Procedure for State Attorney’s Council”

This text is not up to date as the law on trainees is pted already. So far the project has not been involved in the practical handlin of selection procedures.No contacts to the councils could have been establishe We have heard about an internal evaluation sheet being in use for prosecutors without having obtained it. It is till unclear how and why certain advisors becom judges and prosecutors, how the work load of external applicants ke advocates) is measured and what the objective criteria are. If interviews are made (the prosecutors made only one so far) it is unclear what t criteria used are. At least the criteria are not transparent enough.

Originally invitations to roundtables should have been extended to a wider audience to obtain support of a majority of the judici community in Croatia. During the implementation of the project the team proposed a roundtable of a wider audience in order to agree in which law and what kind of regulation need to be changed. Whereas the project team suggests regulating transparent, objective selection criteria within the relevant laws, the Croatian government is thinking to introduce in the law on courts an empowerment for a regulation and to introduce selection criteria within the upcoming re ulation for the State Judicial Council and the State Prosecutorial Council.

For the round table on selection criteria, the MoJ nominated instead of a wider audience a limited number of experts being actually related to the subject. The participants have not been officially communicated to he project, but potential participants will be:

Branko Hrvatin, president of the Supreme Court of Republic of CroatiaMladen Bajic, State Attorney General of Republic of CroatiaDragan Novosel, Deputy State Attorney General of Republic of CroatiaSrdan Šimac, president of the High Commercial Court of Republic of Croatia

-----

--

Activity 3: Selection of Working Group “selection crit ria”



Dražen Bošnjakovic, Dijana Kovacevic – Remenaric, Marina Dujmovic Vukovic, State Secretaries, Ministry of JusticeMirjana Rigljan, president of the County Court, Zagrebmr. sc Ivica Kujundžic, president of the Adminstrative Court, ZagrebNevenka Markovic, – president of the Commercial Court, ZagrebVinko Mioc, president of the Municipal Criminal Court, ZagrebMirela Mijoc, vice president of the Municipal Civil Court, ZagrebIvana Goranic, president of the Judicial Academy, Zagreb

Experts from the project will beEdgar Isermann, president of the High Court of Appeal, GermanyJudge Iogna-Prat, peer-review mission to EU, FranceKey expert Renate Winter, AustriaDr. Rainer Deville, team leader

Members of the working group on selection criteria have not been nominated yet.

Meetings of the working group “selection criteria” should start on 3rd October 2008. However, the Croatian side did not manage to identify the Croatian members of the working group.

The project is currently preparing a comparative assessment of the recruitment procedures and selection strategies for judges and pro cutors in selected EU countries.

This activity has not started yet.

The project team should in cooperation with the members of the working groups prepare a presentation of the drafted law and necessar changes to other laws as stated above and present it to the relevant stakeholders of the judicial sector. Especially the Ministry of Justice should take part in the presentation because it will finalize the draft and bring it into parliament. However the project might be under time pressure, because it is likely the new Law on Cour , which has just passed by Parliament in the last week of September, will introduce an empowerment for a regulation to cover these changes. This might be viewed



Activity 6: Round table or presentation of recommendations to the necessary changes in laws



upon as sufficient by the Ministry of Justice and then there will be no further need for a round table for a presentation.

In regard to career options the project identified in addition to the materials given in the inception report further legal sources.

Evaluation of advisors

Advisors are civil servants. Their evaluation is regulated by the Ordinance on content of special report on performance and efficienc evaluation of civil servants.

Pravilnik o ocjeni rada i ucinkovitosti državnih službenika Ordinance on content of special report on performance and

efficiency evaluation of civil servants

By this Ordinance the content of a special report on performance and efficiency evaluation of civil servants is determined. The report on performa e and efficiency evaluation of civil servants shall comprise:

1) basic data on civil servant and the workplace 2) survey of planned work3) survey of unplanned work4) periodic control on performance and efficiency5) proposal on performance and efficiency evaluation6) comments on proposed evaluation7) opinion on proposed evaluation

Basic is the survey of the planned work. It shall comprise the aims and taskscivil servant should perform and deadlines of the plan d work. However, it is unclear what the workload of advisors is exactly and how the workload is generally described. The project has not yet had the o portunity to check the evaluation procedure in practice.

Evaluation of prosecutors:

Art. 65 of the Law on Prosecutors regulates, that state attorneys and deputy state attorneys, in performing their duties shall be a ssed according to the following criteria:

1. expressed diligence in resolving assigned cases in lation to the average work results of county or municipal state attorneys’ offices in the year preceding the year of assessment, 2. the use of legal remedies,3. expressed professional knowledge and work results,





4. quality of work and capability of written and oral expressions,5. adherence to time-limits in the course of proceedings, 6. capability and expressed readiness to learn and ado new skills, active participation and success in professional training pro rammes, published academic and professional articles and participation at practical law teaching and other relevant academic and professional meetings,7. co-operation and relation to other employees,8. capability of performing administrative work and state attorney’s work, if assigned to such duty.

The Head State Attorney of the Republic of Croatia shall, by a special instruction, determine the rules on keeping records of the work of state attorneys and deputy state attorneys, the assessment procedure, the method of applying assessment measures and the range of grades, n filing complaintsagainst assessments and the procedure upon a complaint as well as other issues of significance for the assessment.The details are regulated in these documents:

Pravilnik o unutarnjem poslovanju u državnim odvjetništvimaRules on internal activity in State Attorney's Offices

Uputa za ocjenjivanje državnih odvjetnika i zamjenika državnih odvjetnika

Anweisung zur Beurteilung der Staatsanwaelte = Adminstrative order concerning the evaluation of state attorneys

According to these regulations files are created containing the statistical data concerning the work (monthly and yearly overview), any complaints about the work, details about the work in very complex cases, pu lications of scientific works, participation in training and other relevant scientific events, hing activities in law and comments of the superior offices including remarks coming from the case handling in higher instances.

In the end the prosecutor obtains points for every aspect. Details of this system are not yet evaluated. The project so far had no oppor unity to check the evaluation procedure in practice.

This activity will be starting in April 2009.


Annex 17 HR Annex 18 EN

Annex 19 HR

Annex 20 DE

Activity 8: Selection of Working Group “career”

Activity 9: Meetings of Working Group “career”




The main goal of component 3 is to create a general st tegy for a unified suitable initial training to provide the young judges and prosecutors with professional skills and knowledge for their daily task to come. The overall objective of component 3 is to raise abilities and knowledge of future judges and prosecutors and the support of the reform process of t Croatian judiciary and establishment of an efficient, transparent and functio ng judiciary. The concrete objective of this component is to create a structure within the JA to constantly design and implement theoretical training for future j dges and prosecutors and trainers for these trainings. The recruitment of addit trainers for the initial training is another objective of this component. The recruitment, selection and the training of trainers will be done in close cooperation with the JA. The improvement of the substantive and procedural skills of future judg s and prosecutors through training can only be achieved by a dual approach –practical and theoretical training – so they are able to integrate their new skills in their daily work. The workshop training at the JA will be piloted by the new trainers under supervision of the project team and the JA with 60 selected trainees on a regional basis.

The are: Implementation of an in-depth training needs analysis for future judges and prosecutors and trainees.Conducting the training needs analysis with a special cus on potential topics for additional trainers.Development of a functioning structure at the JA to carry out training for future judges and prosecutorsTraining of 25 judges and prosecutors to become trainersDesign of a dual system of apprentices- (trainees)-hip Drafting a two year training strategy plan for the training of future judges (three years are no longer desired)Implement a pilot of the designed system on a regional basis for 60 court trainees and advisors Supervision of the trainings system in close contact with the JA

Activity 10: drafting amendments to the laws regulatin the career of judges and prosecutors

2.1.4 Component 3 new: Development of a sustainable training system for trainees as well as piloting of training modules in selected regions under the responsibility of the Judicial Academy

specific objectives•

•

•

•••

•

•



The JA is a part of the ministry of justice and regulated in an regulation on the internal organisation of the ministry of justice.

Uredba o unutarnjem ustrojstvu Ministarstva pravosuda Regulation on internal organization of the Ministry Justice

The project assisted as much as possible. In the future a functioning structure to implement trainings for trainees, advisors, mentors and may be young judges and prosecutors should be suggested. Key element is not the structur as such, as the existing structure foresees a department for tr nees and has a functioning operational sector for the implementation, which has been strengthened as administrative staff has been employed in all regional training centres. The problem is the staffing of the positions n the JA. The team leader discussed the requirements with the new director of the JA, Mrs. Goranic. She had been very sensitive and engaged in regard to the needs and managed to replace leaving staff. The director reports about the development of the academy:

“The Advisory Council of the Judicial Academy which makes the strategic decisions about work and development of the Judicial demy holds a meeting at least 4 times a year, at the September meet g it was agreed that the meetings of the Advisory Council shall be held onc a month. On the 11th of September, the earlier discussed and amended Multi ann strategy of professional training of the JA was adopted, it shall further elaborated in detail throughout the implementation of measures being envisaged by it, of which the majority is already in the imlpementation process. At the same Advisory Council meeting the working groups with participation of JA members who work in cooperation with outside experts in creati g the Rules of Procedure of the Advisory and Programme Council, as well as the Ordinance for accession to the professional training, were formed. The members (outside experts) who will create the core of the working group for further elopment of educative materials needed for better knowledge of EU law were defined thereof, followinga 2007 implementation of introductory education to EU law.

The Programme Council of JA holds a meeting at least 4 times a year. For elaboration of this one-year programme period it shall have meetings twice a month until the end of November. The next meeting shall take place on the 29th of September. Proposed topics for that meeting are pre ed by all courts and

Activity 1: Development of a functioning structure at JA to carry out training for future judges and prosecutors




legal professional associations in Croatia. Information on new laws, which include the provision of education materials that are be integrated into one year programme, as well as the programme proposal for he initial two months training of the trainees at the JA (Pilot project to be executed during 2009), with comments regarding its proposal given by judges and de uty state attorneys during the workshop for mentors who will become programme leade s, was also prepared. The priority in 2009, aside from the usual workshops with the topics decided by the Programme Council (for example the repeated themes regarding corruption and ethics, are continuously included into the JA programmes) shall be the implementation of Pilot project for initial education of judicial and state attorneys trainees, discussions and conference meetings on new laws brought up in accordance with EU standards, improvements of EU law and its implementation, learning foreign languages, computer literacy appropriate for judges and state attorneys. In preparation are the basic patterns for advanced training of younger judges and state attorneys (up to rs of service). One of JA goals is to establish, by the end of 2009, the conditions for three-year operating frame programme of the JA.

The situation with human potentials is gradually but significantly improving – the Director was appointed in May 2008, from July 2008 the Department for trainees has temporarily been filled by a position of counsellor from the County court and from the 1st of September the Head of this Department is the judge assigned from the Municipal court.The agreement regarding the transfer of the judge from the County court to the Judicial Academy in the position of the Head of the Department for programme drafting, should be completed by mid October 2008.

According to new JA job systematization, 29 employees re envisaged and at the moment the request for the announcement of vacancies for 9 positions has been forwarded. The budget for 2008 has increased 28,8% in relation to last year, and due to the commencement of the initial trainees education (Pilot project) which forsees the 60 days training at the JA, the new increase was proposed, which shall certainly be the additional burden for the budget of the Academy.

During August, the Regional centres (Zagreb, Split, Os jek, Rijeka, Varaždin) were completely equipped and qualified for independent work and workshop organization, their libraries are getting equipped gradually, compatible with requirements from the courts and legal professional associations. Administrators were employed by the Regional centres, the moment the discussion about precise role and work of coordinators and possible ways of their motivation for the job they are doing for the JA is under way, whichof the decision will be delivered at the meeting of the Progr ouncil on the 29th of September.



Judicial trainees and bar exam Act is adopted and shall come into force on the 1st of January 2009; the project implementation of PHARE 2005 "Support to the Judicial Academy; Developing a training system for fut re judges and prosecutors" is in the progress. The first workshops for future mentors in the Pilot project, to be realized during 2009, have alread started while the workshops for future mentors shall start work at the beginning of October 2008. The identification of education materials of JA is in rogress, which could be used for the initial education of trainees and also for those who need additions and adjustments, including also such fields where new ducational units have to be developed. It will be discussed by the Programme co ncil at its next meeting and based on the proposals coming out of mentors' workshops. Working groups have been founded for drafting the Ordinance based on d Act, with the purpose of defining in detail the conditions and way of Act implementation, specially in regard to the introduction of objective criteria for the process of accepting trainees into the trainees system and for pa ing the bar exam.

The Judicial Academy has initiated and made official already existing cooperation with Legal professional Association and Pu lic Notaries' Academy; they are expected to draft a text proposal of the frame-agreement about the coordination which shall be signed not later than the nd of this year. At the same time the discussion about signing similar cooperation agreements with all Schools of law in Croatia (already existing in uninstitutionalist terms) is also in progress, JA shall propose the text and the signing is also being expected by the end of this year. The Judicial Academy takes an active part in EJTN working sessions and seminars, in the exchange of judges and state attorneys, in Lisabon network and also in ERA activities (further pr parations enabling the formal Accession Agreement to ERA– budget proposal for 2009 - are underway).“

The team created a training curriculum for the trainin of the trainer. It consists of four workshops of three days each, followed by an a sessment day of one day. Please find the training curricula as which will be updated for parts 2, 3 and 4.

The team created a profile for possible trainers: more than five years as judge or prosecutor; experience in teaching; having received training as trainer; high motivation to teach groups of young colleagues.

Activity 2: Development of training curricula for the n the trainer program

Annexes 23 and 24

Activity 3: Selection of trainers



Based on this description, the project team and the Ju Academy recruited with the support of the Office of the General State Attorney and with the support of the Supreme Court trainers for the workshops. The nominated trainers have participated in a training how to act as trainers before. Most of them participated in such a training already. The others, mainly prosecutors will participate in such training, conducted by Jasminka Ledic, professor at the University Rijeka, until end of 2008. These judges and prosecutors have been nominated:

Ms. BRANKAHRIBERSKI

County Court Zagreb

Ms.LANA PETÖ KUJUNDŽIC

County Court Zagreb

Mr. DARKO MILKOVIC

County Court Zagreb

Ms.KORALJKA BUMCI

County Court Zagreb

Ms. MIRJANA MAGUD

County Court Zagreb

Mr.TOMISLAV TOMAŠIC

Municipal Criminal Court Zagreb

Ms. KORALJKA GLUŠIC

County Court Zagreb

Ms.ILEANA VINJA

Supreme Court

Ms. KATARINA BULJAN

Supreme Court Ms. DUNJAPAVLICEK

Public prosecutor

Ms. NEVENKA MARKOVIC

Commercial Court Zagreb

Ms. IVANAÐURAS

Public prosecutor

Ms. NADA NEKICPLEVKO


Mr. ANTE GALIC


Ms. MARIJAVETMA

County Court Dubrovnik

Mr. ZORAN KEŽIC

County Court Split

Mr. MARKO Municipal Court Ms. LJILJANA County Court Split

Regional Training Centre in Zagreb

Civil Law Trainers Criminal Law TrainersName Judiciary body Name Judiciary body

Regional Training Centre in Split




PRIBISALIC Split STIPIŠICMs. KARMENBRKIC

Public prosecutor

Ms.NERI RADAS

County Court Zlatar

Mr. KREŠIMIR KRALJIC

County Court Koprivnica

Mr.FRANCHARAPIN

Municipal Court Krapina

Ms. BISERKAŠMER BAJT

Public prosecutor

Mr. DRAGAN KATIC

County Court Rijeka

Ms. SREBRENKA ŠANTIC

County Court Rijeka

Ms. KSENIJA DIMEC

Municipal Court Rijeka

Ms. SANDRA JURANOVIC


Ms. LARISACRNKOVIC


Ms. BARBARASANDALJ

Public prosecutor

Ms. DUBRAVKAVUCETIC

County Court Osijek

Mr. KRUNOSLAV BARKIC

County Court Osijek

Ms. KATICAKRAJNOVIC

County Court Osijek

Mr. ZLATKOBUCEVIC

Public prosecutor

Dr. SANJAZAGRAJSKI

Commercial CourtOsijek

These persons participated in the first train the trainer event (15-17 September 2008):

Name Place of work Profession

Regional Training Centre in Varazdin


Regional Training Centre in Rijeka


Regional Training Centre in Osijek




Contact details (deleted for this report)

1. ŽS Osijek

sudac

2. ODO Split

zamjenica ODO

3. ŽDO Osijek

zamjenik ŽDO

4. VSRH sutkinja

5. OS Rijeka

sutkinja

6. OS Rijeka

sutkinja

7. ŽS Požega

sudac

8. TS Zagreb

sudac

9. ŽS Zagreb

sutkinja

10. OS Krapina

predsjednik suda

11. ŽS Zagreb

sutkinja

12. OS Rijeka

sutkinja

13. ŽS Rijeka

sudac

14. ŽS Split

sudac

15. ŽS Osijek

sutkinja

16. ŽS Koprivnica

sudac

17. ŽS Zagreb

sutkinja

18. TS Zagreb

predsjednica suda

19. TSZagreb

sudac

20. ŽDO Zagreb

ŽDO

21. ŽS sutkinja

R.b.

Prezime i ime Pravosudno tijelo

Radno mjesto

BARKICKRUNOSLAVBRKICKARMENBUCEVICZLATKOBULJANKATARINACRNKOVICLARISADIMECKSENIJADRAGICEVICPREDRAGGALICANTEGLUŠICKORALJKAHARAPINFRANCHRIBERSKI BRANKAJURANOVICSANDRAKATICDRAGANKEŽICZORANKRAJNOVICKATICAKRALJICKREŠIMIRMAGUDMIRJANAMARKOVICNEVENKANEKIC PLEVKONADAPAVLICEKDUNJAPETO



Contact details (deleted for this report)

Zagreb

22. OS Split

sudac

23. ŽSZlatar

sutkinja

24. ODO Rijeka

zamjenica ODO

25. ŽS Rijeka

sutkinja

26. ŽS Split

sutkinja

27. OKS Zagreb

sudac

28. ŽS Dubrovnik

sutkinja

29. VSRH sutkinja

30. ŽS Požega

sudac

31. ŽS Osijek

sutkinja

32. TS Osijek

sutkinja

1. ŽS Detmold

sudac

2. projekt odvjetnik

3. projekt sudac

1. Pravosudna akademija

2. Pravosudna akademija

R.b.

Prezime i ime Pravosudno tijelo

Radno mjesto

KUJUNDŽICLANAPRIBISALICMARKORADASNERISANDALJBARBARAŠANTICSREBRENKASTIPIŠICLJILJANATOMAŠICTOMISLAVVETMAMARIJAVINJAILEANAVLAŠICNENADVUCETICDUBRAVKAdr. ZAGRAJSKISANJARÜGGE DIETERdr. EBERTDONATdr. RAINERDEVILLE

Pravosudna akademija

MARINOVICVIŠNJAKRESEKVESNA

Activity 4: Implementation of train the trainer program



The train the trainer program started on 15th September 2008.The emphasis of the training of trainers originally was laid upon the agreement on a program for the pilot training for trainees, to identify training materials and to talk about the methodology of case-solving in a broad sense. By this we understood the teaching of how to handle a case, how to apply the law to the given facts, to decide where evidence is needed, how to prepare the oral hearing, how to write a verdict or other rulings and b sic knowledge of procedural law. During this first workshop the project team saw the challange that some of the trainers did not find completely the level for this advanced professional group. However, the group itself consisted out of already trained trainers anddeveloped, based on the training needs questionnaire, a first draft of a training plan. In addition the trainers identified among the available training materials those that might be adapted for the needs of the training of trainees. This will become the basis for the pilot training and for an ini training plan which should be presented to the advisory board of the JA.However, as comments from the courts in regard to the questionnair are still missing, as Mrs. Kresek joined her position in the JA only four weeks ago and as this activity produced impressive results some two weeks ago the outcome of this seminar – an updated 60 days training plan with identified trai ng materials – has not been finalized, yet and is currently further refined.

The group will continue to meet in October, November and December 2008.

The key expert for training checked the existing evaluation form. The existing evaluation sheet for workshops being used by the Judicial Academy is absolutely up to standards of other Academies or comparable institutions: The questions posed are adequate, the existing ranking (1- 5, “unsatisfactory” to “excellent”) offers a wide range to give a fair mark including shades and nuances. Moreover open questions are posed which leave room for remarks (“which part of the workshop do you find particularly useful?”, “Which part was unnecessary and needless”).

What could enhance the value of the evaluation for the organisers could be an additional asking for suggestions for improvement. This could either be broken down to specific fields like “material”, “venue”, “trainer” or could be a general question. Experience shows though that the more concrete the question, the more useful the answer which means that room for another category “suggestion for improvement” should be given after each section or topic.

Activity 5: Evaluation of trainings



Another suggestion is to consider having the trainer evaluate the organisation and the group as well. Asking about the organisation of the seminar could be split into several questions such as:

Were you contacted and informed on time to prepare yourself properly?Were you thoroughly informed about the group and their expectations?Was your material prepared in the way agreed upon?Was the time at disposal enough for this topic? If not why?

Asking about the participants could contain the following questions:

Was the composition of the group a lucky one? If not, hy? Were the group willing to enter into discussions with u? If not, why?Was your material understood by the group?

It could be a consideration to send both this questionnaire to the trainer plus the questionnaire to the participants to the trainer after recruiting him/her for the seminar in order to politely remind the trainer of things that should be observed: Interactive teaching by a competent trainer using good (multi-media) material will be appreciated by the participants.

These suggestions need to be discussed with the JA.

The project created a working group to elaborate the t aining needs questionnaire. The members were beside the team leader aljka Bumci and Dr. Rainer Deville the training key expert Dr. Donat E prosecutor Dubravka Turkalj Dragosavac (criminal law), judge of the county court Zagreb Goranka Barac-Rucevic (civil and labour law), Prof. Marko Petrak for the law faculty of the University of Zagreb, the president of the High Commercial Court Zagreb Srdan Šimac (commercial law), Dr. Klaus Hage (resident twinning advisor in the Administrative Court) and court advisor Pavle Vukšic. Two different gr ups met on 11th and 15th July 2008.

The training needs questionnaires are attached in Croatian and English as

The questionnaires have been distributed to the President of the Supreme Court, the General State Attorney, the President of the High Commercial Court, the President of the Administrative Court and the President of the Municipal Court in Zagreb (civil and criminal divisions) for comments. Prof. Siniša Rodin, Jean Monnet Chair University of Zagreb commented on the training needs.

----

---

Activity 6: training needs assessment for future judges and prosecutors,drafting of a training strategy plan, design of a dual system of apprenticeship

Annexes 25 and 26.



This questionnaire is the basis for the program of the pilot training, for a proposal of a general initial training plan and the starting point for a comprehensive training strategy.

Originally the project planned that the results of the working groups which obtained the full support of the Croatian judicial sec or would be elaborated by the project team into a two year training strategy pla for the training of future judges and prosecutors. Strategic planning originally uld not only include the pure training but also selection procedures. The plan riginally should be complimented with information on future staffing and a tional training capacity needs. The draft plan should then go back to the two workin groups for consideration. However, this planning probably does no correspond to the Croatian view of the project. A two year training strategy pla cannot be developed, as the new law allows only a training period of two months in total. Assuming that these two months of training are not del red in a block, but in phases and weekly workshops, the training plan will cover the duration of approximately one year.

The Croatian legislator did not follow the proposal of the project suggesting that the traineeship should not exploit the labour force of the trainees but should concentrate on training only. The actual law restricts the training component to the given two months and focuses insofar on the training at the working place.

Probably the selection procedures will not be combined with training. The original idea of the project and the recommendations of foreign experts have not been accepted, as the Croatian government does not wis to establish one single, coherent career leading from trainees to advis s and then to judges or prosecutors. Therefore the training probably will focus on the separated professions only and reduces the training needs to the needs within the current job (trainees: passing the bar exam; advisors: tasks of advisors; judges and prosecutors: continuous training).

The JA developed so far an amended proposal for a training strategy. This document has not been finalized. It describes the role of the JA in general and needs to be updated with regard to initial training. The purpose of adopting a new training strategy is to determine the guidelines and to reach a nsensus on further direction of the development of a sustainab system of lifelong professional training and education in the judiciary.

The goals of drawing up the training strategy are the following:

To improve lifelong professional training of judicial icials, judges and public prosecutors, based on the established needs, while taking into account the specific needs of individual regions.

-



To establish an initial system of training, which will raise the level of skills, knowledge and ability of future judges and public prosecutors (including trainees and advisors), and establish the u orm standards for admission to the judiciary in entire Croatia.To ensure optimum institutional development of the JA, the central institution in charge of education and lifelong professional training in the judiciary, for the implementation of the training strategy.

Dopunjeni prijedlog strategije strucnog usavršavanja PAAmended proposal of the multi-annual strategy of professional

training of Judicial Academy

This training strategy will be updated with regard to initial training. It needs to be streamlined regarding the need to introduce a systematic planning clarifying which subjects should be covered in which intensity wi n different trainings for trainees, advisors, young professionals and professionals on the job.

The new law on trainees already introduced a dual system consisting on the one side of the training delivered by the Judicial Academy and on the other sideof the training on the job done by mentors. This decision has been taken by thelegislator already. The presentation of the law is done within component 1. Therefore there is no room to present and discuss further a system already implemented. This activity is no longer needed.

According to the ToR the project should deliver a pilot training for 60 court trainees and advisors. As the current system does not provide a co rent career between trainees and advisors nor a coherent career between advisors and judges or prosecutors, the project will deliver a pilot training fo 30 trainees (from courts and state attorney’s offices) from February 2009 until the End of the project and tailored trainings for at least 30 adv sors after Summer 2009until the end of 2009.

Due to the reasons mentioned above the project had been unable to finish with the precise program for the pilot training in 2009. The result of the discussions in the group of trainers is based more or less on the training needs questionnaire (see and ).

The trainers suggested combining day 1 and 2 of the introduction module which should focus on civil law only. More room should be given to the internal structure and work organization of the courts.

-

-



Activity 8: Pilot training for 60 court trainees and/ or advisors

Annexes 25 26



The module for civil law should be structured according to the law on civil procedure. Additional subjects should be other decisions of the court than judgements (including the correction of judgments), value of the claim, combination of different files, delivery of documents, orcement and provisory decisions.

In the criminal part it has been suggested to deepen t deal”, the proceedings to check an indictment and to give more space to the m hearing including the evaluation of evidence. Therefore the criminal offences should be reduced to three days and should be repeated by case studies.

In the commercial law part it has been suggested to rearrange the days in a different order.

The trainers took full ownership and checked the availability of training materials and the potential of these materials to be updated for the purposes of the training of trainers. This list of available training materials within the JA was compiled.

1. DELIVERY OF DOCUMENTS IN CIVIL PROCEDURE

JudgesCourt advisers

2. EUROPEAN CONVENTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS


3. COSTS OF CIVIL PROCEEDINGS AND SETTING THE VALUE OF THE DISPUTE MATTER

JudgesCourt advisersPublic prosecutors

4. WITNESSES PROTECTION IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


5. ILLEGAL EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

JudgesPublic prosecutors

6. TECHNIQUES OF WRITING FIRST-INSTANCE RULING IN CIVIL CASES


7. ENFORCEMENT ON IMMOVABLE PROPERTY


8. TERMINATION OF LABOUR CONTRACT


9. INTRODUCTION TO Judges

TRAINING MATERIALS DEVELOPED IN THE JUDICIAL ACADEMY

# Subject of the training material

Target group

•••••••

••••••

•••••



EUROPEAN UNION LAW

10. PREPARATION AND CONDUCT OF MAIN HEARINGS IN CIVIL PROCEDURE

Judges

11. ECONOMIC CRIMINAL OFFENCES


12. CUSTODY – LEGAL GROUNDS AND PROCEDURE

Judges

13. ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP ON THE BASIS OF A LEGAL TRANSACTION AND EX LEGE


14. PSYCHOLOGICAL AND LEGAL ASPECTS OF WITNESS EXAMINATION


15. ENFORCEMENT – SECURING OF CLAIMS


16. PREPARATION AND CONDUCT OF MAIN HEARINGS IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Judges

17. EXTRADICTION AND INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS


18. LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES ACCORDING TO THE AMENDED CIVIL OBLIGATIONS ACT


19. ENFORCEMENT ON REAL ESTATE


20. INVALIDITY OF CONTRACTS UNDER THE NEW CIVIL OBLIGATIONS ACT

SuciSudski savjetnici

21. PREVENTION OF DOMESTIC VIOLANCE


22. EUROPEAN CONVENTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Public prosecutors

23. EU ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS

Public prosecutors

24. INTRODUCTION TO EUROPEAN UNION LAW

Public prosecutors

25. ETHICS AND DEONTOLOGY Public prosecutors

•

•••

••

••

•••

••

••

••••

•••

•

•

•



OF PUBLIC PROSECUTORS26. INTERNATIONAL LEGAL

ASSISTANCE IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS

Public prosecutors

27. THE IMPORTANCE OF EUROPEAN LAW IN THE FIELD OF OWNERSHIP

Public prosecutors

28. MANAGING PUBLIC PROSECUTORS OFFICES

Public prosecutors

29. THE FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM

Public prosecutors

30. THE FIGHT AGAINST ORGANISED CRIME

Public prosecutors

31. CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS Judges

32. INTRODUCTION TO MODERN TEACHING TECHNIQUES

Trainers

33. LEARNING STYLES AND TEACHING

Trainers

34. LEARNING AND TEACHING OBJECTIVES

Trainers

35. DIVISIONAL HEARING Commercial courts judges

36. TECHNIQUES OF WRITING FIRST-INSTANCE RULING IN CRIMINAL CASES


37. HOW TO MANAGE GROUP WORK IN THE LEARNING PROCESS

Trainers

38. OUT-OF-COURT PROCEEDINGS ACCORDING TO THE FAMILY LAW

Judges

39. BANKRUPTCY LAW Commercial courts judges

40. ACT ON LIABILITY OF CORPORATE ENTITIES FOR CRIMINAL OFFENCES


41. CONFISCATION OF PECUNIARY GAIN ACQUIRED BY CRIMINAL OFFENCE


42. FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING AND REPORTING


•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

••

•

•

•

••

••

••



43. INTERESTS ACCORDING TO THE AMENDED CIVIL OBLIGATIONS ACT

Judges

44. INDEMNIFICATION OF NON-MATERIAL DAMAGES- MEDIA ACT

Judges

45. COMBAT AGAINST MONEY LAINDREY


46. INDIVIDUAL LAND REGISTRY PROCEDURE

Judges

47. TRANSFER OF LABOUR CONTRACT TO A NEW EMPLOYER

Judges

48. WITNESS PROTECTION IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND VICTIM ASSISTANCE


This list does not contain materials developed with the assistance of other EU projects (e.g. for intellectual property or antitrust law) or on bilateral activities.

Networking and access are the key words to this component. The Judicial Academy should be linked with other judicial training nstitutes to profit from their know-how and as a future option share its knowledge and experience withthose. The network and communication between the legal acto s in Croatia should be strengthened to foster judicial training. As third point the access to legal databases should be improved. This is a crucial int not only for the Trainees to be able to obtain current information for self-study but for all members of the judiciary.

The are: Analyse the existing ways of communication and information concerning judicial training within the legal community of CroatiaDesign strategy/methodology to strengthen the communication on judicial trainingAnalyse the existing level of accessibility of information and legal databases of all sorts for judicial staff in CroatiaDesign strategy/methodology to increase the rate of ac to legal databases for judicial staff in Croatia

•

•

•••

•

••

•

•

•

•

2.1.5 Component 4: Improvement of access to legal information for trainees, court advisors as well as strengthening of training tworks

Overall and Specific Objectives

specific objectives



Implement two study visits to training centres of othe European Member states to install a cooperation network for the JA and its staff

So far the Croatian legal community is not communicating concerning judicial training to much. Within the structure of the JA an advisory board and a program board exists. Their members are mainly representatives of thejudiciary.

Joint activities with the Universities do exist, but are not formally established. As the Universities are considered to deliver extremely theoretical knowledge, to ask in the exams the text of the laws learnt by heart and not to train technical knowledge on how to solve cases, the basis of cooperation is limited. Without a major change in the content of legal curricula at the Universities and without an implementation of case handling skills the judiciary is afraid to loose time and energy on useless theoretical exercises.

However, the JA decided within the proposed paper “tra ning strategy” to cooperate more deeply with the Academy of Advocates and the Academy of Notaries. The new director is in the process to evaluate the content of cooperation and a tool (memorandum of understanding, contract) to agree formally on a closer cooperation.

The team leader had been in contact with the academy of notaries in order to promote cooperation with the JA. The public notaries association have regulated the notary acadmy by a foundation (Odluku o osnivanju hrvatske javnobilježnicke akademije from 21st April 2007) and a regulation (pravilnik o radu hrvatske Javnobilježnicke Akademije from 10th November 2007). So far the notaries have in their system 123 trainees and 97 “advisors” with bar exam but without notary exam (2008).The academy of notaries plan obtain new rooms suitable for training for about 250 persons, to place heir training activities and training materials on a web-side and to involve other legal professions as well. This includes the idea to share certain subjects with the JA and the otary academy might suggest to deliver subject like enforcement or transfer of immoval property.

In June 2008 Short Term Experts Mr. Busse and Dr. Richter analysed the existing legal databases and the case law in the Supreme Court. Team leader

•

Activity 1: Analysis of existing ways of communication of the Croa ian legal community concerning judicial training




Dr. Deville deepened their mission by assessing the situation at the county court in Zagreb in August 2008.

The project identified existing tools. One problem is that judgements need to be anonymized before being published through a search machine in the internet. The Supreme Court has created rules for the anonymisation of judgements

Upute o nacinu anonimizacije sudskih odlukaInstructions on anonymisation of judgements Pravila o nacinu anonimizacije sudskih odlukaRuels on anonymisation of judgements

The courts hesitate do invest further workload in preparing their judgement for publication. So far the courts store their or superior judgements in internal databases in the intranet. This intranet can be used by trainees or advisors as well as long as they are in the relevant court, but the complete amount of judgements are not accessible to the public via the search tool of the supreme court.

The project checked if it is technically possible to l nk the existing intranets or to transform the available data into the databases of the Supreme Court. This cannot be handled by this project, as the courts do not use the same hardware nor the same software. Any kind of improvement need to be handled by the upcoming Phare project 2006 in this sector, which can the investment component to advance further.

In addition the project checked available internet resources. There is a general lack of consolidated laws. Even the legal information ke Narodne Novinewww.nn.hr – Official legislative journal (narodne novine, not providing consolidated versions so far) is providing the amendin laws and users are forced to produce updated versions on their own or to y commercial providers for the delivery. Therefore judges and prosecutors do have an urgently needed tool. The project is elaborating a more advanced link list and we e currently collecting possible links to be used. This link list s uld enable trainees to use one starting point to find all needed information. This task has not been finalized. Some possible links might be www.legalis.hr – broad legal information including chat-rooms. The website legalis.hr is providing a promising page including a chat-room for questions. This web side could be elaborated urther and could include laws in consolidated versions, training materials, templates, manuals, a scientific online legal magazine, information for the bar exam or “English for lawyers”. So far legalis.hr is a non-commercial website, originally developed by EU projects. It is worth to check if cooperation with legalis hr could be useful for the JA.

Annex 29 HRAnnex 30 ENAnnex 31 HRAnnex 32 EN



Other websites have updated laws or legal information like www.korekt.hr

The student project www.gpp.pravo.hr contains 15 consolidated laws in Croatian language (or www.hidra.hr).

www.pravokutnik.net - website of the law students in Zagreb

www.hjk.hr – Notary Chamber

www.vsrh.hr – Supreme Court (with search tool and links to other official sides)

www.pravnadatoteka.hr – database of court opinions, decision

www.hok-cba.hr - website of the Chamber of Advocates

www.andall.org/o_nama.htm - website for lawyers with laws, some in English, EU law,

http://dns.pravo.hr/gpp/index.htm - website of law students, laws

However, consolidated versions of the laws are not available officially. The official side Narodne Novine is publishing amendment l only. It is a privatebusiness, available via internet, to prepare consolidated versions of law.

The project proposed to establish a link-list with this information.

According to the ToR (4.3.) the project should create cooperation network with the EU Member states training institutes through study visits and other means of cooperation, e.g. exchange of experts.

The study visits should take place in two EU Member states (2 study visits for 4-6 participants, members of the Advisory Board of the JA d JA staff); duration of each study visit will be 4 working days). Both study visits have been prepared. One study visits for coordinators of the regional cent s will take place in 9.2. - 13.2. 2009 to the Austrian training centre in Kitzbuehl.

Provisional program for a study visit to Kitzbuehl

As other study visits have been established during previous projects and by bilateral activities (to Bordeaux, Barcelona, 2008 to Budapest) the second study

Activity 3: Implement two study visits to training centres of other European Member states to install a cooperation network for the JA and its staff

Annex 33



visit will combine the original purpose of a study visit with the participation in a real training. Five examinators in the bar exam, designed to become trainers for future examinators, will participate in an examiner’s training from 22. – 26.6.2009 at the German training academy in Recklinghausen.

The project cannot continue with the preparation as the participants have not yet been nominated by the Croatian side.

Team leader Dr. Deville gave comments on the draft action plan of the judicial reform strategy in the old version (20th May 2008). He and key expert Winterassisted European colleagues assessing the Justice par of the Peer Review (area judicial reform – court system) that took place 9. – 13. June 2008.

The team leader assisted a media company shooting a mo on behalf of the EC delegation on EU projects to include this project as an example for successful EU projects in the area of justice and home affairs.

The man-days of the core team (team leader, key experts 2 and have been used almost exactly as foreseen in the original proposal. The man-days for Senior and Junior Short Term Experts have been used slightly different than planned as the project integrated more Junior Short Term Experts than foreseen and less Senior Short Term Experts. This is i our view a positive development as young professionals from Croatia and European States (Germany and Austria) did get the chance and used it well to participate in the project. In the following two reporting periods we ant to use more Senior Short Term expertise as these more experienced experts will team up with their respective Croatian counterparts in the pilot training. Please refer to for the planned and used working days and to for the financial planning and cashflow prognosis.The incidential budget is used almost exactly accordin to the planned budget included in the Inception report (Annex 43 of the inception report). Please refer to to obtain an overview of the monthly outflow of the i dential budget.

2.1.6. Other activities of the project team

2.2 Resources planned and used

Annex 41Annex 42

Annex 43

2.3. Progress made (including a review of project indicators)

2.3.1 General Progress



A new law on trainees has been adopted. The Law on Courts now contains a possibility to include selection criteria into the rules of procedure of the State Judicial Council.

The result has already been completed during the inception phase.



This result has been reached. The working group met as described above.

The project developed drafting guidelines and a comple e new law proposal which had been the basis for the working group.

The working group welcomed ideas from the comparative research but in the end stayed close to the existing Croatian model. Therefore the discussion paperelaborated by the experts including the advisors has been reduced to the previous content of the previous law focussing on trai es only. Once this decision of the Croatian side became clear, the working group c ncentrated on a new law based on the previous one.

The experts drafted a new law proposal including an explanation of the draft as well. The results of the working group has been presented to advocate Zadravec who commented it, and to the law faculty of t niversity of Zagreb. The faculty provided the Ministry directly with their advice. This document prepared by the working group went into the cabinet.

The Ministry of Justice introduced minor changes only. Most changes are purely technical. The more significant are only following one :

2.3.2 Component 1: Component 1 new: Amendments to the Law on Trainees and Bar Exam and design of a dual system of initial training in the law


Activity 2: Comparative research



Activity 5: Drafting of recommendations and the Law on Ap entices (trainees)



The original Article 2 has been dropped out – related to the Ordinance about entering the trainee program, and its agraph 2 has become paragraph 2 of Article no. 10.

Article 16 has been changed – reasons for cease of traineeship are more general.Points no. 4, 5, 6, were dropped, and in points 2 and 7 formulation “due to reasons contained in the Civil Servants Act re ulations” was added. In Paragraph 2, only head of the judicial body wasmentioned related to the decision about the ceasing of traineeship, while all the statements of mentor and trainee were dropped, as well as delivering a personal file on the trainees.

Article 20 has been changed - Paragraph 3 has been deleted.

The law has been adopted by parliament without major changes within the reporting period.

Zakon o vježbenicima u pravosudnim tijelima i pravosu nom ispitu

New Judicial trainees and bar exam ActObjašnjenje: Prijedlog Zakona o vježbenicima u pravosudnim

tijelima i pravosudnom ispitu (za Sabor)Explanation to the draft of the Judicial trainees and bar exam Act

(for Parliament)

The new Judicial Trainees Act regulates the conditions for admission of trainees at courts and state attorney's offices (hereinafter “j dicial bodies”), the total duration of traineeship, its goals, and the method of conducting the traineeship. For all concerned — the attorney and public notary trainees, lawyers with finalized university law degree studies in the state a nistrative bodies, local and regional self-government and persons employed as associate professors at law faculties who intend to take the bar examination — the new law regulates only the basic conditions of their practice. The new law standardizes the ntent of the bar exam, just as the current Act does. The education is pillar-based in principle. The new law, however, also allows trainees rom other, non-judicial, pillars to take part in workshops held by the Judicial Academy (Art. 15 para. 3, Art. 16 para. 5, Art. 17 para. 4).

The new law standardises the admission structure and t duration of and content of traineeship at judicial bodies, but it strictly distinguishes between the requirements and needs of the practices at courts and state attorney offices. For this reason court trainees are, inter alia, obliged to spend at least four months in the civil division, two months in the criminal division, one month in a second instance civil court, one month in the second instance criminal

•

•

•

Annex 34 HR

Annex 35 ENAnnex 36 HR

Annex 37 EN



adjudication process, two months at the Commercial Cou and two months at the State Attorney's Office (Art. 10 para. 2), whereas state attorneys' trainees have to spend, inter alia, only at least eight months at court (three months in the civil division, three months in the criminal one, one month in a second instance civil court, and one month in the second instance crim l adjudication process; Art. 10 para. 3).

The new law structures the practical and theoretical parts of the education. Trainees at judicial bodies will gain practical experi in different judicial bodies and theoretical knowledge in workshops. This has been introduced in order to avoid trainees receiving only partial trainin n judicial bodies.

To enable trainees in judicial bodies to receive a qua fied education, it is interdict to misuse practical professional education mainly to work at particular bodies Art. 2 para. 3). The main objective of a traineeship is to assure a professional education, to enable the independent performance of s ic work tasks in judicial bodies, and to acquire conditions fo successfully completing the bar examination.

To assure a professional and qualified training system he Judicial Academy is vitally important. Workshops for trainees in judicial bodie will be conducted by the Judicial Academy (Art. 9 para. 1). The mentors of he trainees in judicial bodies have to undergo an education program for mentor at the Judicial Academy (Art. 11 para. 1).

Transparent selection criteria for admission to a judi ial traineeship are vital. The new law establishes objective conditions. A university degree in law is mandatory (Art. 5 para. 1 No. 3).

A Croatian citizenship is basically indispensable, as trainees in judicial bodies become civil servants for the education period (Art. 3 rt. 7 para. 1). Wheneveremployment in the public service is concerned, EC article 39, paragraph 4 foresees exemptions from the generally guaranteed right to free movement of persons of any EU Member State citizenship. However, trai p has to be open to citizens of the European Community for activities that are performed during education within state authorities. Therefore t e new law allows citizens of members of the European Union to be admitted as trainees at judicial bodies if they hold an university degree in law and are able for duty (Art. 5 para. 4).

The conclusion drawn is that the Croatian legal education system has to be open for equally qualified EU nationals in order to observe EU requirements and ECJ jurisdiction. The SAA signed between the European Communities and its Member States and the Republic of Croatia entered into force on 1st February 2005. Art. 69 in accordance with Art. 5 SAA foresees t e approximation of Croatian laws with the acquis communautaire in the coming years and the full



harmonization with the acquis as it is agreed in the SAA after 6 years of the SAA having entered into force, i.e. on 1st February 2011 the latest. The SAA with Croatia does foresee legal harmonization with the acquis until 1 February 2011 the latest. However, the new law foresees the entry into force at the date of the accession to EU. The project informed that depe ding on the date of accession the deadline of the SAA might be discussed.

For admission of a person who is a foreign citizen or person without citizenship, prior permission of the central state administrative body competent for servants' relations is needed (Art. 5 para. 2).

It is, of course, necessary to not have a record of being condemned for serious crimes or disciplinary offences (Art. 5 para. 3).

Within the selection procedure candidates may only be dmitted if there are sufficient vacant training positions. The numbers of vacant positions will be evaluated by the Ministry competent for justice matters on a basis of short-term plan (calendar year), a medium-term plan (period of two years) and long-term plan (period of four years) (Art. 4 para 1). The vacant positions have to be published in the Official Gazette, the web page of the respective Ministry, as well as in one of the daily newspapers so that every c ndidate is able to take notice (Art. 4 para 4).

Besides the number of sufficient vacant positions for candidate, the candidates - exclusive of the aforementioned basic conditions – have to pass a selection procedure. At a vacant post of a trainee onl those candidates will be admitted who acquire the highest number of points and ho successfully pass psychological testing.

The total number of points is composed of a maximum of 50 points given on the basis of the results of grades from the university law studies and other achievements at graduate and postgraduate law studies nd another maximum of 50 points achieved through a written knowledge test. If there are more candidates with the same number of points than the existing vacant trainees’ posts, the candidates who reached more points in the written knowledge test shall be selected. If qualifications are still equal, he priority shall be given to the underrepresented gender (Art. 6 paras. 3 & 4).

Passing a psychological test is essential for being admitted to civil service. In order to avoid candidates unable to work as a judge or state attorney areadmitted only by the aforementioned achieved points, a psychological test is indispensable (Art. 6 para. 2).

Non-objective exercises of influence on the selection of candidates will be avoided as a selection committee will decide upon the candidates’ admissions



(Art. 6 para. 5). Members and their deputies have two years terms, and they are appointed from the rank of high officials of the Ministry competent for justice matters, from the rank of judges, and from the rank of state attorneys and deputies (Art. 6 para. 5) to prevent any kind of corruption.

For those candidates who are not admitted, there is a complaint procedure. This sums up the transparency of the selection procedure be the decision of the selection committee will be under control of the Minister competent for justice matters.

As mentioned before, the traineeship is more structured i comparison to the current law.

Whereas the current law regulates that trainees shall be admitted for training at different courts and state attorneys' offices and that urt training for trainees ina public prosecutor's office, public attorney's office nd magistrate’s office shall last nine months, the new law directs that court trainees spend at least 4 months in the civil department, 2 months in the criminal department, 1 month in a second instance civil court, 1 month in a second instance criminal adjudication process, 2 months at the Commercial Court and 2 months at the State Attorney's Office (Art. 10 para 2). State attorneys’ trainees spend at least 8 months at court (3 months in civil, 3 months in criminal, 1 month in a second instance civil court, and 1 month in a second instance criminal adjudication process; Art. 10 para 3).

To ensure education during traineeship mentors will be appointed to guide the trainees during their professional education in the practical part of their traineeship. These mentors will receive a mentor education program at the Judicial Academy (Art. 11 para. 2). To not overburden hese mentors, each mentor will be responsible for the practical training not more than two trainees (Art. 11 para. 2). In order to win qualified and motivated mentors, work with trainees will be viewed upon as equivalent to work on other jobs.

Trainees are obliged to complete written tests. The co nt and number of obligatory tests will be regulated by the Ministry competent for justice matters. The Ministry competent for justice matters will also have t obligation to maintain this file. Trainees will gain further practic l experience by independently carrying out practical work in the judge’s or state attorney’s presence and under his or her instructions. For example, trainees may undertake actions in the course of a main hearing, con uct investigative actions and hearings, question witnesses in certain minor crim l cases, and represent plaintiffs in main hearings in certain first instance al cases (Art. 12 para. 2).

The judicial trainees also have to participate in work ps held by the Judicial



Academy. As the workshops not only undertake the task of imparting theoretical knowledge but also must prepare the trainees for the p ctical part of judicial training, participation in the workshops is obligatory (Art. 9 para. 2). The place and time of professional education, the manner of participation in the workshops, the manner of its evaluation, as well as supervision over its implementation will be prescribed by the Minister comp tent for justice matters (Art. 9 para. 3).

Judicial trainees will have a two month opportunity to exclusively prepare for the bar examination (Art. 10 para 4) after having finalized 18 months of trainees p. They will still be paid during this preparation time. r the remaining part of the traineeship until its expiration, they have to perform tasks on the basis of their mentors’ instructions for further professional training. The judicial trainees qualify to take the bar examination after 18 months of traineeship (Art. 19 para 1).

The education of attorney and public notary trainees; yers with finalized university law degree studies in the state administrative bodies, local and regional self-government; and persons employed as associate professors at law faculties who intend to take the bar examination is also pillar-based, in principle. These trainees will be trained in their cor esponding pillar.

To guarantee an overall high level traineeship, the new law regulates only basic but vital conditions for the education in other pillars.

Attorney trainees have to be trained theoretically for at least 150 hours according to the program that must be adjusted to the Judicial Academy's program. There is no need for attorney trainees to be obliged to spend a certain time in court, because they naturally came into contact with courts and state attorneys' offices during their everyday work (Art. 15). These trainees will be allowed to take the bar exam after 18 months of a trai eship (Art. 19 para 2).

On the contrary notary trainees have to spend at least 160 hours in court as part of their practical education, because notary trai will normally not havemuch contact with courts and state attorneys' offices uring their work. The 160 hours will be conducted in the same way as for judicial trainees. They also have to be trained theoretically at least 150 hours accordi g to the Judicial Academy's program (Art. 16). Public notary trainees will be allowed to take the bar examination after 18 months of a public notary traineeship (Art. 19 para. 2).

The lawyers employed in state administrative bodies, l cal, and regional self-governments, other legal persons, persons employed as associate professors at law faculties as well as other persons intending to take the bar examination will have to spend in court at least half of the time nvisaged for court trainees (Art. 17). These persons do not have contact with courts and state attorneys'



offices during their work. Furthermore there is no gua antee that they will deal with legal matters in their everyday work. A minimum j dicial experience is vital, and therefore they will be allowed to take the bar examination only after 36 months of their traineeship (Art. 19 para. 2).

All aforementioned trainees may take part in workshops held by the Judicial Academy (Art. 15 para. 3; Art. 16 para. 5; Art. 17 par 4).

All trainees, no matter the pillar to which they belong have to pass the same bar exam. It is now more advanced and practice-orientated. It consists of a written and an oral part. The examination may be postponed mid-way if a candidate due to illness or some other justified reason is prevented to continue with the examination (Art. 27).

The bar examination is taken before an Examination Committee consisting of five members and a minimum of five deputy members for ch subject group to be tested. The members and their deputies will be appointed at the proposal ofthe President of the Supreme Court, Chief State Attorney, President of the Bar Association and Public Notary's Association, and Presi ent of the Administrative Court. Only experienced, and therefore qualified, persons are eligible to become members of the Committee, they must have at least 15 years of working experience as judges, state attorneys, attorneys, or public notaries.

The written part of the bar exam consists of three tests. Two tests are complete first instance judgments, one from the domain of civil law and one from criminallaw. The third written test is chosen by the candidate from either the domains of labour, commercial, or administrative law (Art. 20 para. 1). Whereas the third test does not need to be based on a concrete case file, the first two tests have to be based on practical files. This has been introduced to ensure that the candidate will have to demonstrate an ability to deal with tasks from a practical, legal, and procedural point of view.

If a candidate, without justified reason, does not turn in a written test within the prescribed time period he fails the examination (Art. 22 para. 1).

In order to avoid any non-objective exercises of influence on the written tests’ evaluation, the members of the Examination Committee will not be given information on the candidate. The candidate will receive an anonymous number from the Ministry competent for justice matters for completing the written test. The anonymity of the written part is guaranteed as the tests do not contain any other elements identifying the candidate (Art. 20 para. 3).

The oral examination before an Examination Committee will be conducted in the constant presence of all its members and will have a maximum of four candidates (Art. 23 para 3). The oral part has to last as long as needed for



testing the candidates’ knowledge, but not longer than 5 hours (Art. 23 para. 5). It consists of five parts corresponding to the groups subjects to be tested, namely:

Civil and Commercial Law,Civil Procedural and Family law,Criminal and Criminal Procedural Law,Labour and Administrative Law,Constitutional Law and Fundamentals of EU System and O ganization of Judiciary (Art. 23 para. 2).

If a candidate, without justified reason, does not show up for the oral examination or leaves the oral part of the examination, he fails the bar am (Art. 26).

To minimize non-objective influence on the oral evaluation, members of the Examination Committee who have either participated in he traineeship of a particular trainee in workshops or as mentors are not allowed to participate in the oral exam for that candidate (Art. 18 para. 4).

Article 25 regulates the evaluation system. To evaluat the candidate’s success, the written tests and the oral part of the ex will be marked with points. In the overall result, a maximum of 100 points may be reached by the candidate of the bar examination. For each written test a maximum of 10 points may be earned, and for each oral segment 15 points may be earned, except only 10 points may be earned from the last section concerning Constitutional Law and Fundamentals of the EU System and the Organization of the Judiciary. Regardless of the total points earned, a candidate will fail if he is not able to reach a minimum number of points in nearly every part of the examination. He must reach at least six points in each of the first two written tests (Art. 22 para. 3) and at least five points in each part of the oral part (Art. 26 para 3). The minimum total score is 56 points (Art. 26 para. 4). With this regulation, the new law guarantees that each candidate must have a minimum knowledge in each legal subject relevant for further practical work.

A candidate who failed the exam may retake the entire examination after four months (Art. 28 para. 1). After the first attempt, a candidate may retake the exam only twice (Art. 28 para. 4).

Beginning the first of November 2009, all candidates must take the bar examination in accordance with the provisions from the new law. Candidates who are admitted to work before this new law enters into force, will acquire conditions for taking the bar examination in accordance with the Judicial Trainees and Bar Examination Act, but have to take the bar examination in accordance with the provisions of the new law. Only those persons who already acquired the conditions regulated by the Judicial Trai es and Bar Examination

-----



Act may take the bar examination until 31stof October 2009 according to theJudicial Trainees and Bar Examination Act.

The JA put the new law on its website. Further activities for the presentation could not have been implemented yet (see above).

The project drafted precise, complete proposals of regulations for the discussion. The experts suggested so far three regulations: one in re rd to the training, one in regard to the costs and one concernin the bar exam. The proposals have not been discussed so far by the workin group.

Meetings of the working group have started on 29th and 30th September 2008.The MoJ will have to announce regulations to the law on trainees until 15th

January 2009.

The team leader Dr. Deville prepared the mission of expert Dr. Schrader, which will take place in October 2008.

A plan for the employment of trainees and advisors does not exist. As many positions are filled as possible within the limited bu get. Theoretically the budget for the judges and prosecutors has a more advanced basis. The work load of judges (and possibly of prosecutors) is define by a regulation. Theoretically the number of judges and prosecutors is ded by the average amount of cases dealt with within the last 3 years (according to the Law on Courts).

It is difficult to obtain an overview of the current legal status. The project has been collecting materials with the help of the counterparts for months and we are still obtaining new information. The current situation is not transparent t all.

Activity 6: Presentation of the law

Additional activity 7: Proposal of needed regulations the new law on trainees and bar exam

2.3.3 Component 2 new: Amendments to the laws regulating the selection and appointment of advisors, judges and prosecutors, including a strategy for the recruitment and the career management for advisors, judges and prosecutors

Activity 1: Assessment of future staffing requirements of Croatian Courts

Activity 2: In depth assessment of current legal status, Assessment of Recruitment procedures and selection criteria



It will be one of the duties of the round table and the working group to create a more advanced overview and publish it.

This activity is in progress.




The project team should in cooperation with the members of the working groups prepare a presentation of the drafted law and necessar changes to other laws as stated above and present it to the relevant stakeholders of the judicial sector. Especially the Ministry of Justice should take part in the presentation because it will finalize the draft and bring it to parliament. However the project might be under time pressure as well. The government might consider an amendment in the Law on Courts (which has just been passed by Parliament and the content is not verified yet), introducing an empowerment for a regulation, as sufficie and might not join into a round table for the presentation.


This activity will start in Spring 2009.

This activity will start in Spring 2009.

Activity 3: Selection of Working Group “selection criteria”



Activity 6: Roundtable or presentation of recommendati ns to the necessary changes in laws


Activity 8: Selection of Working Group “career”

Activity 9: Meetings of Working Group “career”

Activity 10: drafting amendments to the laws regulatin the career of judges and prosecutors



This activity will start in Spring/Summer 2009.

Under the given circumstances it needs to be considered a good result that the positions which had been staffed at the beginning of this reporting period and which became vacant have been staffed until the end of the re ting period again.

This activity is done. As participants had been very active we went further than foreseen originally Therefore the project team has to update the program for the upcoming trainings.

This activity is done.

This activity in ongoing. Participants of the first meeting have been very much engaged and committed themselves very much. For the upcoming workshops the project team does not have to follow the original program but will update it and the project team will reconsider the use of expert for the training component in total. For the upcoming parts of this activity the project will advance deeper into the relevant modules of the initial training and will develop training materials.

This activity will be done in December 2009.

2.3.4 Component 3 new: Development of a sustainable training system for trainees as well as piloting of training modules in selected regions under the responsibility of the Judicial Academy

Activity 1: Development of a functioning structure at the JA to carry out training for future judges and prosecutors

Activity 2: Development of training curricula for the train the trainer program

Activity 3: Selection of trainers

Activity 4: Implementation of train the trainers program

Activity 5: Evaluation of trainings

Activity 6: training needs assessment for future judges and prosecutors, drafting of a training strategy plan, design of a dual system of apprenticeship



The law on trainees already foresees a dual system of training: The JA is delivering the workshops based on the training plan.

Article 10

(1) Traineeship consists of a practical part that shall take place at courts and state attorney’s offices, and of participation in rkshops organised by the Judicial Academy.

(2) ...

The duration of the workshops has been fixed with a total duration of two months.

Article 12

(1) Workshops covering specific legal areas, in a total du ation of two months, shall be organised by the Judicial Academy in rder to enable trainees to acquire skills necessary for the pe formance of practical work tasks in courts and state attorney’s offices. Participation in workshops is obligatory.

(2) ....

A training needs questionnaire has been elaborated by the project with the help of a working group. The questionnaire already proposes to split up the two months of training mentioned in the new law into sixty days of training covering all major subjects of the bar exam. This idea has been communicated by the MoJ and finds fully support of the experts of the project. The training needs questionnaire proposes an introduction week of five days an workshops to be delivered by the JA once a week. On the one side the questionnaire is still containing theoretical elements – in the view of the experts not necessary -, but on the other side the questionnaire is asking as well if new very practical elements can be introduced (like night drive with the lice or visits of the forensic institute and a prison).

The training needs questionnaire has been sent to the Supreme Court, the General State Attorney’s Office, to the High Commercial Court, the Administrative Court and the County Courts (civil and criminal division) in Zagreb for comments. As the institutions have been represented already during the creation of the training needs questionnaire the comments are expected to confirm the proposed approach. The members of the “train the trainers” workshops looked in detail into the training needs que onnaire and took it as the basis to develop a template training for trainees (mainly by devoting re



time for practical questions). Insofar the training needs questionnaire has been answered and developed to a training plan for trainees. It is communicated to the advisory board of the JA for further comments.

In addition the new law prescribes that trainees will have to pass several places of work in order to see several aspects of the profession.

Article 11

(1) During their traineeship, court trainees shall spend not less than four months at a first instance civil department, two months at a first instance criminal department, one month at a second instance civil department, one month at a second instance criminal department, two months at a Commercial Court, and two months at a State Attorney’s office. Until they meet the conditions for taking the bar examination trainees shall work in accordance with a schedule made by the head of the judicial body to which they are assigned. (3) During their traineeship, state attorney trainees hall spend not less than eight months of the practical part of their traineeship at a court, of which three months at a first instance civil departmen , three months at a first instance criminal department, one month at a second instance civil department and one month at a second instance criminal department. Until they meet the conditions for taking the bar examination trainees shall work in accordance with a schedule made by the head of the judicial body to which they are assigned.

The law has introduced mentors. Mentors are judges or rosecutors with at least 3 years working experience willing to educate young colleagues.

Article 13

(1) Trainees shall have mentors who supervise their wo k and professional education during the practical part of their traineeship. Mentors shall be appointed by the head of the judicial body to which a trainee is assigned. (2) Mentors may be judges and state attorneys or deputy state attorneys who have completed their mentor training at the Judicial Academy and who are appointed as mentors in accordance with the an ual work plan. (3) Duties of a mentor are to stimulate the interest and efforts of trainees and prepare them for responsible fulfilment of practical tasks. A mentor may not have more than two trainees at one time. The w rk with trainees shall enjoy equal status as that of other work tasks. The evaluation of work with trainees shall be regulated by the framework standards applied for the workload of judges, state attorneys and deputies.



(4) In any part of their training, trainees shall write obligatory written papers. The type and number of obligatory papers to be drawn up in any of the parts of professional training shall be prescri d by Ordinance of the Ministry competent for judicial matters.(5) A trainee shall keep a journal of his/her trainees p performance. The journal form shall be regulated by a special Ordinance issued by the Minister of Justice.(6) The supervision of traineeship performance in courts and state attorney’s offices shall be carried out by the head of the judicial body in cooperation with mentors to whom trainees have been assigned.

These mentors will be trained as well. The project designed a one day training module and training materials already and they need to be complemented by a pedagogical tool coming from Prof. Ledic from the Univ ity of Rijeka. The implementation should start on 2nd October, but so far mentors to be trained have not been identified. Therefore the project adds another training for mentors in March 2009.

This activity does not need to take place as the dual system is in force al y. The project assists implementing it.

The pilot training shall take place in 2009.

The training strategy of the JA and contracts with the Academy of Advocatesand the Academy of Notaries are still in the pipeline. The idea to involve other players of the legal community into the program conference and to organize joint activities with the University is probably too demanding for the time being and implementation and sustainability may fail as the capacities are insufficient.

Short Term Experts Mr. Busse and Dr. Richter assessed the existing legal databases in the Supreme Court.


Activity 8: Pilot training for 60 trainees and / or ad rs

2.3.5 Component 4: Improvement of access to legal information for trainees, court advisors as well as strengthening of training tworks

Activity 1: Analysis of existing ways of communication of the Croa ian legal community concerning judicial training




Guidelines for courts in Croatia relating to internet pages do not exist. Croatian Courts are free in designing their webpage and choosin its content wherefore the existing pages differ in style and type; a “corporate identity” of internet pages of Croatian Courts does not exist.

In order to improve the presentation of Croatian Courts on the internet and the benefits for internet users, a common design for courts’ websites should be developed and enacted.

The Supreme Court of Croatia (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) provides a professional-looking, multi-language webpage (www.vsrh.hr):

However, although the content of the webpage can be accessed in either Croatian or English language, structure and content of both sections differ. Moreover, the English section of the webpage has not been updated since its launch in 2002 and contains laws and regulations that have since then been

Internet presentation of Croatian Courts

Webpage of the Supreme Court of Croatia – Structure and Content



declared invalid (it should be verified whether this also applies to the Croatian section of the webpage).

In order to improve the appearance of the webpage and its benefits for internet users, laws and regulations that are outdated should either be removed from the webpage, or clearly labelled as outdated, and repl ced by actual laws. It should also be ensured that the content of the webpage is maintained in case of further changes of laws and regulations. Finally, the structure of the English and Croatian sections of the webpage should concur.

The webpage of the Supreme Court offers, inter alia, a judgment database. In 2003 the tool has been initiated by a CARDS/OBNOVA program (01-0041: Croatia Judiciary and Law Faculties). Today the database contains more than 100.000 decisions. The vast majority of decisions derive from the Supreme Court itself – more than 97.000 – since it publishes each and every decision. The remaining decisions derive from other Croatian Courts sending decisions by their own choice to the Supreme Court for publishin consistent guidelines defining criteria with respect to the kind of decisions that should be published do not exist.

The database can be accessed from the start page via the following banner:

By clicking this banner, another website, the start page of the judgment database, opens:

Judgment database



The search tool can be accessed by clicking on the word “Pretrazivanje” in the menu bar. The judgment database provides an extensive, professional search engine with different search modes for beginners (“Osn vno pretraživanje”), as well as advanced (“Standardno pretraživanje”) and expe t (“Napredno pretraživanje”) users:



Although the search operators appear to be well-documented on the internet page itself, users, especially judges, seem to have problems with using it. Thus, it should be evaluated whether training courses should be offered.

Decisions to be published are anonymised by using software that alters individual-related data according to existing anonymisation rules Nevertheless, anonymisation is not an automated process since it is equired to select each word that has to be anonymised by hand and then start the anonymisation tool. It should be evaluated whether the process of anonymisation could be improved by using a tool that detects and alters individual-related data within a decision automatically.

Subsequently, the decision has to be uploaded to the content management system and, therewith, the internet. This is also done manually since specific court advisors have to read the judgment in order to r rd specific data that is later used by the search engine (keywords, case no, date of decision, and so forth).



The Supreme Court intends to publish (at least) all of its decisions since 1991. Most of these decisions are already online but approx. 50,000 decisions from older cases still remain. These older decisions have already been scanned by using text-recognition software (ocr-software). Nevertheless, it is still necessary to manually edit the scanned text since the ocr-software did not produce error-free text. It is also required to anonymise these decisions. Thus, it should be evaluated whether – especially the process of anonymisation – can be automatised (see above).

The Supreme Court provides on its internet-page a search tool in order to search judgements. The user has at his disposal a comprehensive information in Croatian language about the use of the search tool (http://sudskapraksa.vsrh.hr/supra/ link „Prirucnik za korisnike aplikacije “Sudska Praksa”) This instruction is well made and sufficient, but may be not known enough by trainees, judges and prosecutors. As a recommendation it is proposed to train the exiting tool and promote it.

Behind the databases more than 100.000 decisions can be found. Other courts are entitled to deliver their judgements into the databases as well as long as they are anonymized. The anonymisation of judgements has been detected to be the true problem.

This project is working on the accessibility to legal databases and case law. The supreme court of Croatia has published on its website decisions of the Supreme Court and of some other courts. Only judgements without names may be published in the Internet. The Supreme Court uses so far a basic software for the anonymisation which requires man power. This is an obstacle in the process of publishing more judgements which are already availab on the internal databases of the courts, but not anonymized. The German software is more advanced and could be used to anonymize judgements automatical y. Please find the description of the situation in the attached er.

The equivalent German software uses word-lists. Unfortunately the Supreme Court did not yet answer our request to identify typical words indicating a name. However the project made a first attempt for a wordlist. We excluded linguistic questions in regard to correct translation and listed he expressions that a software might search for. In addition the project prepared a list of the cities and islands of Croatia.

The German company is ready to check if the Croatian word list and the list of Cities can be introduced easily into the existing prog m and if the program can be used for the automatic anonymisatian of Croatian judgements as well.Unfortunately the project has no investment component. The Judicial Academy and the Supreme Court kindly asked IRZ to check if IRZ could be so kind to



finance bilaterally any necessary payments in order to provide the Supreme Court with the Croatian version.

Municipal court of Zagreb

The municipal court of Zagreb is located in two buildings (criminal and civil law). Both parts of this court are connected to a unique, internal intranet. The intranet is managed by an IT-division which is headed by IT engineer Neven Pavlicic (Tel . 01- 6126-676, [email protected]). The intranet is not available to the public, but available to all staff of the court including advisors and trainees. The start page of the Internet is a collection of links.

Intranet start page municipal court of Zagreb:

These links lead to several legal information, a link Narodne Novine combined with an own search machine (looking for key words in laws), a forum for chats and a search tool for jurisdiction.



The search is done with an internal databases consisting out of nearly 23.000 decisions from the appeal instance, the County Court of Zagreb. The own first instance jurisdiction of the municipal court is not available. The databases consist out of several sources. Some old court decisions from 1986-2001 have been scanned and manually implemented in the present s stem. All court decisions from 2003 onwards are 100% anonymised. However, the decisions are not registered by keywords. The software searches the words appearing within the text of the judgement. Therefore it is probably not possible to introduce these databases into the existing databases of the Supreme Court which is searching with keywords.

Activity 3: Implement two study visits to training cent es of other European Member States to install a cooperation network for the JA and its staff

Strengthening the networks



Within the current budget no budget line is available for the Judicial Academy to pay for the participation of international training. However, in addition to the budget of the Judicial Academy (about 3.000.000 Kuna w ut rent, budget line 1327 – A629024) the courts and state attorney's offices enjoy an similar sized own budget and as far as the project could verify the courts and sta e attorney's offices are able – form the budgetary point of view - to finance out of this budget international trainings as well. Unfortunately e Ministry of Justice has no overview how this budget has been spent and to which extent judges and prosecutors participated in international training activities.The project suggested to ask the courts and state atto y's offices on the use of the budget and to encourage them to participate in rainings of ERA and EJTN. The Ministry hesitates to implement the proposed communication structure, fearing an intervention into the independence of the courts.

These are the finances approved by the State Budget of he Republic of Croatia for 2008, allocated for professional development in courts and state attorney's offices in Croatia:

A631000 Conducting court proceedings under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of RH

3213 Professional development of the employees

120.000

A631003 Supreme Court of RH

3237 Seminars and counselling organised by the SC of RH

20.000

A632001 Supreme Commercial Court of RH

3237 Seminars and counselling organised by the SCC of RH

30.000

A632000 Conducting court proceedings under the jurisdiction of the High Commercial Court of RH


80.000

A631012 Court decisions announcement system


40.000

A639000 Conducting court proceedings under the jurisdiction of thecommercial courts


350.000



A633000 Conducting court proceedings under the jurisdiction of theAdministrative court of RH


220.000

A637000 Conducting court proceedings under the jurisdiction of theHigh misdemeanour court of RH


20.000

A637003 Seminars and counselling organised by the High misdemeanour court of RH


85.000

A638000 Conducting court proceedings under the jurisdiction of the county courts


300.000

A641000 Conducting court proceedings under the jurisdiction of the district courts


900.000

A643000 Conducting court proceedings under the jurisdiction of the misdemeanour courts


200.000

A634002 International cooperation of the State attorney's offices


32.000

A634012 Improvement and monitoring of the work results under the juris-diction of State Attorney's offices


54.000



on all levels

A640000 Prosecution of criminal and punishable offenders and protection of RH property held before the county courts and administrative bodies


200.000

A642000 Prosecution of criminal and punishable offenders and protection of RH property held before authorized courts and bodies


370.000

TOTAL IN HRK: 3.021.000

The JA wishes to further develop international cooperation with the relevant national and international institutions. In addition the JA will continue to participate in existing networks, as well as participating in activities with international experts, in the twinning and technical a sistance projects, cooperating with foreign providers of professional training, participating in international programmes for the exchange of judicial icials and employees, and other beneficial forms of cooperation. This is the actual development of the international cooperation activities of the JA with the European Judicial Training Network and the Academy of European Law:

The Judicial Academy (JA) obtained the observer status in the E pean Judicial Training Network (EJTN) in June 2007 and has actively participating in the sessions of the Network's General Assembly. Even before obtaining the observer status, the JA had been actively involved in the EJTN Exchange Programme. In 2007, within the framework of t Programme, six foreign judicial officials visited Croatian judicial b dies, while four Croatian judges and prosecutors visited Member States of the Eu n Union. This year, the JA and Croatian judicial bodies will host ten judicial officials from

International co-operation

European Judicial Training Network (EJTN)



Austria, Latvia, Macedonia, Spain, Poland and Romania, while nine Croatian judges and prosecutors will visit the Czech Republic, nmark, Italy, Germany, Poland, Spain and Sweden. In addition to the Exchange Programme, the Academy has been actively engaged in other activities the Network (such as training-of-trainers workshops, workshops/seminars on the training in the field of EU law, etc.).

The aim of the JA is to become more actively involved as a partner organisation in the implementation of the projects for which the EJTN sends its project proposals to the European Commission’s calls for proposals. So far, this has not always been possible due to insufficient human resources at the JA.

Croatian judges and prosecutors regularly participate the seminars and conferences organised by the Academy of European Law t rough and with the financial support of the Judicial Academy. The JA is interested in the signing of the Formal Agreement of Accession to the Academy of European Law and, consequently, it has incl d in its budget proposal for next three years the costs that the signing of such Agreement will imply (i.e. EUR 50,000 in three annual instalments).

- Insufficient human resources (Namely, only one person is in charge of both managing the Director’s Office and all the international activities of the JA, including the establishment of arrangements for various programmes and, very often, their implementation down to a very operative l vel.)- Until this year (including the 2008 budget), there has been no separate international cooperation item in the budget of the JA.- The JA receives no information as to the involvement of Croatian judicial officials in international activities financed from the budget funds of courts and the Chief Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Croatia.

- More active involvement of the Judicial Academy as a rtner organisation in the implementation of the projects for which the EJTN ends its project proposals to the European Commission’s calls for proposals;- The signing of the Formal Accession Agreement with ERA;- The organisation of one international event every year which would assemble not only representatives of the countries of the region and ‘new’ EU Member States (i.e 10 + 2), but also representatives of the neighbouring countries, such as, for instance, Italy and Austria.

Academy of European Law (ERA)

Challenges before the Judicial Academy

Aims



In Component 2, Activity 1, which concerns the assessment of future staffing requirements of Croatian Courts, the project is stuck. We need more detailed information on the work load of prosecutors and Misdemeanour Courts and on the case load in courts. As long as the case management system is not working a basis for the consultation is missing.

Roundtables with presentations of the findings of the assessments and a presentation of the results of the working groups to a wider audience, an activity originally offered, are nearly impossible to implement. The MoJ involves main stakeholders within the system in the working groups a d ensures participation already in the discussion process. Then it directly implements the proposals and additional, prior and broader discussions are not supported.

The project saw difficulties in implementing the training of mentors, as participants had not been identified. The project has ficulties to implement the working group “selection criteria” as the members have not been identified.

In the future the project might have to rethink the use of man-days. Possibly we cannot use completely the foreseen man-days for the key expert for training and we might have to request to shift man-days from the key expert to short term experts. As the new system for trainees has been developed quickly and as the implementation of the training of trainees, advisors and mentors has to focus on special topics in all branches of law and the project has to assist with specialists in regard to the entry test and the third written test in the bar exam (focussing on special subjects) the project might need more man-days for specialized short term experts. So far we are uncertain about this question because th project partners need to finalize the training plan for trainees and the overwiev of available and needed training materials.

The project content is embedded in the overarching policy issue of Croatia to join the EU as soon as possible. In order to open negotiation on Chapter 23 Croatia is reforming its education and selection proce ure concerning future judges and prosecutors. The projects supports this goal in every possible way and has already reached a major milestone by drafting the new law on Judicial Trainees which has been passed by the Croatian Parliament before the summer. Furthermore the project will assist the releva Croatian institutions in implementing the changes introduced by the new law and assure these are carried out in a way fit to meet EU standards. Additional activities were created to support this process and sustain its results.

2.4. Problems encountered

2.5. Respect of, and contribution to, overarching policy issues



France has a bilateral cooperation agreement with the JA. However, implementation still is a challenge. France has devote n the past assistance to other fields of the judiciary as well as to the development of a bailiff system (“huissier”). The reaction of the Croatian Ministry of Justice is considered to be poor.

The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe granted to the JA Mrs. Ognjen Tus as expert for six month to update the internet page. These activities have been coordinated with the update of the part describi g the project. The new law on trainees had been available on the web soon after the availability of the law.

The Judicial Academy of Croatia has 10 regional coordinators (find d s in the inception report). This project has the pleasure to enable 4 - 5 of them to visit a foreign training institution within the framework of the project. IRZ invited all coordinators of the regional training centres on a bilateral basis to take part in a study trip to the judicial training centre in Budapest (Hungary) on 4th to 6th

September 2008.

This project is working on the accessibility to legal bases and case law. The Supreme Court of Croatia has published on its website decisions of the Supreme Court and of some other courts. Only judgement without names may be published in the Internet. The Supreme Court uses so far a basic software for the anonymisation which requires man power. This is an obstacle in the process of publishing more judgements which are already availabl on the internal databases of the courts, but not anonymized. The German software is more developed and could be used to anonymize judgements automatically. The German software uses word-lists. The project created similar word lists in Croatian. The German company is ready to check if the roatian word list and the list of Cities can be introduced easily into the existing program and if the program can be used for the automatic anonymizatian of Croatian judgements as well. Unfortunately the project has no investment component. We do not know if the company is requesting payment for the test or – if it works – for the Croatian version of the software. IRZ has been so kind to offer financial support on a bilateral basis in order to provide the Supreme Court with a Croatian version, if it is technically possible.

Two staff members from the Judicial Academy have been invited by IRZ to discuss with their German colleagues practical questions, tips and tricks about budget planning and budget handling and practical questions on implementation

2.6. Linkage with other operations, complementarity and sectoral coordination between donors



of trainings in the Ministry of Justice in Duesseldorf (Germany) and in the Judicial Academy in Recklinghausen (22nd until 24th September 2008).

The project objectives still are:

Amendments to the Law on Trainees and the content of the Bar Exam, as well as the laws regulating the selection and appoi ent of judgesStrategy for the selection criteria and recruitment pr edure of future judges and prosecutors being improved Strategy for the training of future judges and prosecutors designed and relevant training curricula/modules developed Access to legal information for trainees and court advisers improved, as well as the training networks strengthened.

The Logframe is . The overall work plan is attached asThe plan of operations for the next reporting period is

Until 31st March 2009 the project plans to achieve these results:

Regulations to the law on trainees proposed

Political guidelines on selection criteria identifiedAmendments in laws or regulation agreedWorking group “selection criteria” implemented and drafting

“Train the trainer” workshop finalizedProgram for pilot training agreedPilot training startedTraining of mentors started

Study visit to Kitzbuehel done

3 Detailed work plan (next implementation period)

Annex 38 Annex 39. Annex 40.

3.1 Results to be achieved by the end of reporting period 2

Component 1:

Component 2:

Component 3:

Component 4:

•

•

•

•



responsible

: Presentation of the law and necessary developments in the regulation to the relevant stakeholders of the judicial sector

13.- 20. 10.2008 University24.10.2008 AdvocatesActivities are supported by the project.

BumciBumci

Additional Proposal of needed regulations to the new law on trainees and bar exam.Assisting the implementation.working group “regulations” 29.9.2008, 14.30 – 18.00

30.9.2008, 14.00 – 18.001.10.2008, 14.00 – 18.0012./13.11. 2008 10.00 –16.00 1. – 5.12.2008milestone: proposal of regulations

BumciWinter

Working group entry test for trainees

5.11.20089.12.200811.12.2008milestones: entry test (secret); manual for participants (public)

BumciISTE in pilot training

Implementation of entry test So far not assisted by the project

Bumci

Formation and training of a group to create questions for the entry test in the future

19.10. – 23.10.2009

milestone: group set up

Bumci

Training of mentors (cancelled: 2.10.)11.11. Zagreb - Winter2.12. Osijek - Winter 20.1. Varaždin – Dr. Kroll21.1. Rijeka - Dr. Kroll23.1. Split – Dr. Kroll

Bumci (nomination of mentors) Kresek(implementation),Winter, ISTE Kroll, Ledic

Mentoring accompanied and assessed, future trainers for training of mentors selected

16. – 20.3. 2009 training in Zagrebassessment

KresekISTE KrollLedic

3.2 Activity schedule, including milestones and responsibility

Activity dateComponent 1 new:New Law on Trainees and Bar ExamActivity 6

Activity 7:



Examiners of the bar exam trained

June – September 2009: Identification of participants (trainers of study trip as trainers?)September 2009 (training)

Bumci

new bar exam done and assessed

November 2009 BumciISTE Bucic

Amendments to the laws regulating the and appointment of advisors, judges and prosecutors, including a strategy for the recruitment and the career management for advisors, judges and prosecutors

Bumci

: Assessment of future staffing requirements of Croatian Courts

Mission Dr. Schrader on staffing needs in October (27. – 31.10.2008) (and Nov. 2009?)

BumciISTE Dr.Schrader

: In depth assessmentof current legal status, Assessment of Recruitment procedures and selection criteria

ongoing Bumci

: Selection of Working Group “selection criteria”

roundtable on selection criteria 1.10.2008milestone: Identification of and agreement on needs for changes concerning selection criteria for advisors and judges and prosecutors (what to change, in which law or regulation?)

BumciISTEs Isermann,Iogna-Prat

: Meetings of Working Group “selection criteria”

3.10.2008 preparation meeting “selection procedures 10. – 14.11.2008 working group “selection procedures” -1. - 5.12.2008 working group “selection procedures”12.- 16.1.2009 working group “selection procedures”(February 2009 if needed)2. – 6.3.2009 working group

Bumci ISTEs Iogna-Prat,Isermann,WitzmannWinter

: drafting amendments milestone: proposal of the Bumci and

Component 2 new:

selection

Activity 1

Activity 2

Activity 3

Activity 4

Activity 5



to the laws regulating the selection and appointment of judges and prosecutors

drafted law and necessary changes “selection criteria for advisors, judges and prosecutors” to other laws

experts

: Roundtable andpresentation of recommendations to the necessary changes in laws

23. – 27.3.2009: presentation Bumci, ISTE Isermann

: In depth assessment of current legal status of career options

April – June 2009 Bumci, ISTE Fleischer

: Selection of Working Group “career”


: Meetings of Working Group “career”


drafting amendments to the laws regulating the career of judges and prosecutors

May - July 2009Milestone: recommendation on the regulation concerning career

Bumci

Development of a sustainable training system for trainees as well as modules in selected regions under the responsibility of the Judicial Academy

Development of a functioning structure at the JA to carry out training for future judges and prosecutors

workshop “further development of the structure of the JA” in order to guarantee sustainability; including monitoring of the training systemDate: 1. – 7.10.2009

KresekISTESchmidt

Implementation of train the trainers program

15. – 17.10.2008 in Osijek (civil trainers): train the trainer introduction course civil (subsumtion, case solving skills, civil procedure, writing judgements, taking evidence)19. – 21.11.2008 in Split (civil trainers): workshops civil law (typical subjects in courts, deepening introduction)

Kresek

Activity 6

Activity 7

Activity 8

Activity 9

Activity 10:

Component 3 new:

piloting of training

Activity 1:

Activity 4:



25. – 27.11.2008 in Zagreb Evaluation of trainings 18.12.2008 in Zagreb Kresek

training needs assessment for future judges and prosecutors Drafting of a training strategy planImplementing a dual system of apprenticeship

21.10. 2008 round table within the JA

Milestone: general training strategy and multi annual training plan

Kresek

Pilot training for 60 trainees and / or advisors

Kresek

Selection of trainees as participants in the pilot training

January 2009Not assisted by the project(so far)

Bumci

Implementation February – Nov 2009 KresekTraining materials October 2008 – November 09 Kresek,IST

ETraining of advisors September – November

2009;12. – 16.10.2009 Dr. Kroll: case management, organisation of work-flow, handling backlogs13.10. training in Zagreb15.10. training in Osijek

KresekISTE Kroll,ISTE

Kresek

Analysis of existing ways of communication of theCroatian legal community concerning judicial training

Kresek

Analysis of accessibility to legal databases and case law

6. – 17.10.2008 KresekISTE Richter

Implement two study visits to training centres of other European Member States to install a cooperation network for the JA and its staff

Kitzbuehl 9.2. - 13.2. 2009 (coordinators of regional training centre)Training for examiners in the practical state exam for

KresekISTE Schoen

Kresek

Activity 5:

Activity 6:

Activity 8:

Component 4Improvement of access to legal information for trainees, court advisors as well as strengthening of training networksActivity 1:

Activity 2:

Activity 3:



trainees 22. – 26.6.2009

1.10.2008 round table “selection criteria”1.10.2008 working group “regulations law on trainees”3.10.2008 preparation meeting “selection procedures”,

Expert Michel Iogna-Prat: concours, ISTE Isermann,6. – 17.10.2008 Expert Richter: database13.10.2008 PIU meeting15. – 17.10.2008 in Osijek (civil trainers): train the trainer21.10. 2008 round table on training needs and materials within the JA27. – 31.10.2008 Mission Dr. Schrader on staffing needs30.10.2008 steering committee

5.11.2008 working group “entry test”12.11. 2008 working group “regulations law on trainees”10. – 14.11.2008 working group “selection criteria” ISTE Witzmann19. – 21.11.2008 in Split (commercial, family law etc): train the trainer 25. – 27.11.2008 in Zagreb (criminal law trainers): train the trainer

1. - 5.12.2008 working group “selection criteria” and “regulations” (Winter)9.12.2008 working group “entry exam for trainees”11.12.2008 working group “entry exam for trainees”18.12.2008 evaluation of the workshops “train the trainer” in Zagreb

12.- 16.1.2009 working group “selection criteria” (Winter)20.1.2009 training of mentors in Varaždin – Dr. Kroll21.1.2009 training of mentors in Rijeka - Dr. Kroll 23.1. 2009 training of mentors in Split – Dr. Kroll(January) (reserve capacity for the implementation of the entry st

for trainees if needed)

2.2. – 6.2.2009 introduction week “pilot training” for trainees days 1 - 5

Time table for the upcoming six months:

October 2008

November 2008

December 2008

January 2009

February 2009



9.2. - 13.2. 2009 study visit judicial academy in KitzbuehlFebruary 2009 ongoing once a week: pilot training for trainees – civil law

module days 6 - 8(February 2009) (reserve capacity for another meeting of the working group

“selection criteria” if needed)

2. – 6.3.2009 working group selection criteria (Winter)16. – 20.3. 2009 training of mentors in Zagreb,

assessment of mentor training (Dr. Kroll)23. – 27.3.2009 final meeting working group “selection criteria” and

presentation (ISTE Isermann)31.3.2009 second progress reportMarch ongoing once a week: pilot training for trainees – civil law

module days 9 - 12

Career criteria for judges and prosecutorsongoing: pilot training for trainees (civil law)

Career criteria for judges and prosecutorsongoing: pilot training for trainees (civil / criminal law)

Career criteria for judges and prosecutorsongoing: pilot training for trainees (criminal law)

Career criteria for judges and prosecutorsongoing: pilot training for trainees (criminal law/block seminar EU law)study trip to Germany

Vacations

ongoing: pilot training for trainees (criminal / commercial law)training for advisorstraining for examiners in the bar exam

March 2009

Timetable from April 2009 – December 2009

April 2009

May 2009

June 2009

July 2009

August 2009

September 2009

October 2009



Formation of a group for the entry test of traineesDevelopment of the structure of the JAAssessment of staffing needsongoing: pilot training for traineestraining for advisors: case management

Assessment of new bar examongoing: pilot training for traineestraining for advisorsfinal report

Latest update of web-pageClosing of the office

In order to ensure sustainability the project does not limit itself to the elaboration of the regulations to the new law on trainees. As the new law introduces a new entry test for trainees, the project offers to be involved in the development of the first selection test for trainees and in the formation and training of a group to create questions for the entry est in the future, which will immensely support the implementation of future entry t ts.

The training of mentors and the assessment of the new dual system of workshops and mentors in the court ensures sustainabil as well.

In addition, the bar exam became a new structure. The nvitation of potential examiners to take part in one of the study trips and an assessment mission at the end of the project accompany the updated exam.

With regard to the general preconditions for the project it is assumed that Croatia will pursue the judicial reform on its way becoming a Member State of the EU and will support the further development of the JA an s further staffing needs. In addition it is crucial for the success of this project to obtain support of all relevant stakeholders for the established training system of judges and prosecutors.

The motivation and active participation of relevant stak holders is a necessary precondition to improve the legal framework for the se on and recruitment procedures of future judges and prosecutors. It is assumed that the involvement

November 2009

December 2009

3.3 Special activities to ensure sustainability (if any)

3.4. Assumptions and risk



of the judicial sector in the strategic questions of how to select, trainers and court advisors in the training activities will be constructive and supportive to the project.

Furthermore it is assumed that past and current donor ctivities supporting the reform of the judiciary in Croatia are effectively implemented and continuity and synergies can be achieved. It is assumed that the established trainers network under the past CARDS projects are still in place and are willing and open to support the JA and the project team with the development and implementation of trainings for Trainees.

Personnel continuity is another key assumption for the successful implementation of this project, as the trained Trainees and advisors and the trained trainers should remain in service to achieve a sustainable effect. In addition it is assumed that the selected candidates fo the trainings and trainers are available and encouraged by their courts to attend the trainings.

It is assumed that the project team in cooperation with International and Croatian experts will tackle the challenges of the four components successfully.A key factor to the project is the relationship to the project partner the JA, especially the Head of the Department for Court and Pr secutors Trainees. It is assumed that a trustful and fruitful cooperation can be established between the project team and the staff of JA. In addition it is as umed, that JA has the capacities to support the project implementation process and to respond to the needs of the project team.

The below-mentioned risks are stated in the inception report. The team constantly has to deal nearly with all risks.

Difficulties in recruiting additional staff responsible for the curricula for Trainees

This risk is real. The JA has 30 positions, but only 11 were staffed at the beginning of the project. Staff turnover could be handled so far, but an improvement is still needed. The new director of the JA is about to improve the situation.

Lack of co-operation and common understanding among relevant parties in the Judicial Sector (JA, Supreme Court, Association of Judges, State Judicial Council, General State Attorneys Office etc.)

The project has to check to which extend the relevant parties are really willing to improve the current situation

Risks

Risk Ways to address the risk



Lack of co-operation and common understanding among relevant parties in the Judicial Sector (legal professions)

This risk had become partly reality in different circumstances. The stakeholders of other legal professions like advocates and notaries are not willing to create a new system including their professions as well. Probably it might still be possible that persons are able to pass the bar exam without ever having been in court.

Resignation of trained trainers from the JA

So far the project had not been facedwith this risk.

Overlaps with other donor funded projects

Good cooperation avoided this risk.

Insufficient capacity of the Judicial Academy to act as counterpart to the project

This risk has partly become reality. This problem had been addressed during all Project Implementation Unit meetings. The current counterpart Mrs. Bumci remains acting in court as a judge.

Resignation of the counterpart within the Judicial Academy.

This risk is real. The original counterpart Mrs. Govan left two months after the project start. The JA has staff turnover as well (director, assistant to the counterpart).

A national consensus is lacking or political disputes about the proposed system delay the law drafting.

This risk is real.

Lack of cooperation of future mentors due to additional, unpaid workload.

The project suggests to clarify the role of a mentor. It should be recognized as workload or becoming a mentor should be supported in any of the following ways: remuneration, career options, condition to become examiner in the bar exam in future.

Lack of internet and computer facilities in courts and training centres, lack of equipped libraries, lack of access of trainees or advisors to existing resources (like

The equipment of courts and their libraries is a matter of concern. Having no investment component the project cannot influence these circumstances.



IT in court)

Lack of sufficient financing for training, travel or accommodation (according to the ToR, training events in Croatia will be co –financed by the JA in the way that it covers the subsistence and accommodation costs of local participants to these events)

There is no financing for accommodation available. The project suggested introducing a budget line for initial training in order to implement at least a one week training unit in the beginning.

Lack of sufficient financing for printed codes for participants the trainers.

This risk is real. The JA requested a budget to buy books.

Lack of sufficient financing to send participants to activities offered by foreign training institutions

This risk occurred. The project suggested introducing a budget line for international training in addition to the budget line available to courts and state attorney’s offices.

Please refer to titled “Man-dayes used”.

The new law on trainees and the bar exam will be a sus ainable law. The Croatian side decided quite early that Croatia did not want to use best practice from other European countries but to develop the existing Croatian model in a way to fit European standards. Maybe the new law is not – scientifically spoken – the theoretical best solution or the latest and more dvanced development in Europe. But the new is built on the existing and known elements of the previous Croatian law and smoothly develops it further. A substantial number of well known elements stayed (like the pillar approach within the legal professions, the division of training with judges or prosecutors, two m hs vacation period for the preparation of the exam). Some changes are not really challenging (three instead of two written tests – the two old ones remained unchanged). Major new items are positive (dual system of training, constant presence of examiners during the exam, points in the exam, anonymous writing of the written part).This law will not stay unchanged forever, but it kicks off an irreversible process which results in a constant enhancement process.

3.5 Resource schedule

Annex 41

4. Sustainability



The implementation is a little bit more challenging – not for the trainees, but for the State. Some elements need to be developed (entry test for trainees, development of the third written exam) and some administrative practice need to be created (organisation of the initial training, sending trainees to different work places, evaluation of trainees, anonymisation of en tests and evaluation). However these tasks are not too complicat d. To guarantee sustainability the project will assist with the implementation as well.

We wish to point out that the new director of the JA immediately participated within the project and has full ownership. This is an outstandin cooperationand valued immensely by the project.

The Minister herself had been present in the visibility event. The working level of the MoJ as well as in the courts and the state atto y’s offices are not automatically recognizing or informing the project, bu our colleagues always received experts whenever the project requested specific information.

The project wishes more involvement of the Judicial Co ncil and the State Prosecutorial Council when it starts with the selection criteria an the career questions. It is suggested that these institutions ide y a partner the project can address directly.

On the working level the MoJ acted so far indirectly b instructing only the counterpart orally. The project never received in writing policy guidelines and had never been in the situation to discuss possible solutions with the MoJ in advance. The project is proposing and drafting and sometimes the experts had the impression to follow rumours.

The project office has been staffed with all technical eans (including additional Laptops for Short Term Experts) to conduct an efficient and thorough project implementation. During the upcoming trainings the project will emphasize the importance of modern training techniques and tools. Trainers (Croatian and European) will bereminded by the project to make use of existing technologies and modern teaching devices (self learning materials, IT-tools etc.).

4.1. Participation and ownership by beneficiaries

4.2. Policy support

4.3. Appropriate technology



As the legal community is an integral part of the public as such in each country the project content should be viewed from a wider angle. Insofar as the project objectives are mainly concerned with the education and selection of the future generations of judges and prosecutors it is a vital point for the Croatian public. Currently the judiciary is not valued highly in the public opinion. If the project objectives are achieved in the course of the project implementation, especially the establishment of transparent and objective criteria for the recruitment of future judges and prosecutors it could change the view of the public upon the judiciary in the foreseeable future.

The project is promoting gender equality within itsr procedure to recruit Short Term Experts. If two equally experienced and suitable experts are found, the priority will have a female or disabled expert and that person will be recruited. As most of the involved Croatian experts and counterpa ts are aware of gender issues, the need to discuss it has not arisen yet.

This project is not related to environmental protection. The project introduced the separate collection of paper waste and organized with private money basic household-tools to minimize plastic dishes used frequently befor for take-away food at lunchtime.

The JA succeeded to replace leaving staff until the en of the report period. As Mrs. Bumci is available as counterpart in addition to s Kresek in the JA, the staff situation now is better than at the starting poi of the project. However the day to day coordination is challenging as judge Bumci has to give priority to the duties in the court and is neither situated in the MoJ nor in the relevant Councils nor the JA. Although she has full ownership she is only partly available as counterpart. The JA needs more staff to implement initial training sustainably. Therefore the project still recommends relocating one additional judge and one additional prosecutor from their offices full time to he JA. In addition the relevant sections in the JA need to be staffed with a secretary.

We have to admit that the project challenges a little bit a conflict of management styles and maybe of cultures. The European side within the project felt that the organisation had been unnecessarily inefficient and ti consuming, the Europeans wanted to work with a longer preparation time, without constantly

4.4. Socio-cultural aspects

4.5. Gender equality

4.6. Environmental protection

4.7. Institutional and management capacity



requesting all kind of details and wished sometimes more information for the experts in advance and a more sophisticated planning o missions.

However, only in very few parts the project could not have been implementedas foreseen: The first training of mentors could not t place like originally planned on 2nd October 2008 as participants had not been identified. The members of the working group on selection criteria have not been selected and the first meeting in October will be an internal prepa atory meeting only. Actually the identification of participants for the study visit in February is considered to be far in the future (although within the six months planning period). The results the project achieved nevertheless are from the European view a Mediterraneanmiracle in the Balkans and from the Croatian side good local practice to achieve results.

For the rest of the project implementation time the team agreed that the German team leader will be more relaxed and the Croatian side will be more pro-active. Together we will definitely be able to achieve all results.

As the project is achieving its objectives in time or before foreseen deadlines and the outflow of man-days and incidentials is on track in comparison to the original planning the economic and f ancial viability is assured.

The project has had impressive success within the first period already. The new Law on Trainees, elaborated by the project, has alread been passed by Parliament. The law introduces a selection procedure for trainees, their initial training in a dual system consisting of training by the JA and on the job with the assistance of mentors, minimum education requirements other legal professions and a more advanced and fair bar exam including a precise result to be used for selection of candidates afterwards. Indeed the project goes beyond the ToR and assists in drafting regulations and implementing the new law.

The project has not yet obtained a relevant practical inside view on selection procedures and career management. The legal situation is not transparent, but possibly more advanced than assumed in the ToR.

4.8. Economic and financial viability

5 Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1. Conclusions in implementation (including critical issues / risks)



The training of the trainers is ongoing. The trainers re well selected and engaged. The pilot training is in preparation. The JA possibly has to allow itself quite a bit of time to design the relevant training materials.

A tool for the research of legal information and an international training network exists. The project will assist to advance even further in these areas.

A reliable project planning and project implementation had been a challenge in the past. The counterpart is still not full-time available and not situated neither in the JA, the MoJ nor in the Councils and has to give pr ority to the work as judge in criminal matters. This is not a setting the ToR originally had foreseen.

The MoJ (or the JA) should collect and publish all relevant laws, regulations, administrative orders and templates concerning the selection, evaluation and career of trainees, advisors, judges and prosecutors in one place on a web-side and keep it updated in order to guarantee transparency. If we and our colleagues need several months and are in constant tro e all members of the judiciary and especially future members will appreciate this piece of information.

It is recommended to staff the JA further. The existing staff is not sufficient for a sustainable implementation of the initial training for trainees.

5.2. Recommendation for next implementation period



Annex

Organisation structure of the JA EN 1

Pravilnik o sastavu i nacinu rada natjecajne komisije za popunjavanje slobodnih radnih mjesta pripravnika u pra udnim organima Rules regulating the composition and method of operation of the selection commission for filling trainee vacancies in udicial bodies

HR 2

Rules regulating the composition and method of operation of the selection commission for in judicial bodiesPravilnik o sastavu i nacinu rada natjecajne komisije popunjavanje slobodnih radnih mjesta pripravnika u pra udnim organima

EN 3

Uredba o raspisivanju i provedbi javnog natjecaja i internog oglasa u državnoj službiRegulation on vacancy announcement and recruitment through public vacancy advertisements and internal notices in he civil service

HR 4

Regulation on vacancy announcement and through public vacancy advertisements and internal notices in he

Uredba o raspisivanju i provedbi javnog natjecaja i internog oglasa u državnoj službi

EN 5

Zakon o državnim službenicima (procišc. verzija 2008) NN 27/08Civil servants Act (consolid. with amendm. from 2008) NN 27/08

HR 6

(consolid. with amendm. from 2008)NN 27/08Zakon o državnim službenicima (procišc. verzija 2008) NN 27/08

EN 7

Konacni prijedlog zakona o izmjenama i dopunama Zakona o sudovimaFinal Draft of Law on Courts –

HR 8

Annexes

filling trainee vacancies

recruitment civil

service

Civil servants Act

amendments currently in the parliament



Zakon o sudovima – procišcen na temelju novog Prijedloga 2008Law on courts – consolidated – based on proposed amendmendsfrom the Draft 2008

HR 9

– consolidated with proposed amendmends from the Draft 2008Zakon o sudovima - procišcen na temelju novog Prijedloga 2008

EN 10

Poslovnik Državnog sudbenog vijeca

Rules of procedure for the state judicial councilHR 11

Rules of procedure for the

Poslovnik Državnog sudbenog vijecaEN 12

Poslovnik Državnoodvjetnickog vijeca

Rules of procedure for the state attorney’s councilHR 13

Rules of procedure for the

Poslovnik Državnoodvjetnickog vijecaEN 14

Pravilnik o ocjeni rada i ucinkovitosti državnih službenika

Ordinance on performance and efficiency evaluation of servants

HR 15

Ordinance on performance and efficiency evaluation of servants

Pravilnik o ocjeni rada i ucinkovitosti državnih službenika

EN 16

Pravilnik o unutarnjem poslovanju u državnim odvjetništvima

Rules on internal activity in State Attorney's OfficesHR 17

Rules on internal activity in State Attorney's Offices

Pravilnik o unutarnjem poslovanju u državnim odvjetništvimaEN 18


Adminstrative order concerning the evaluation of state attorneys

HR 19

Adminstrative order concerning the evaluation of state attorneys


DE 20

Uredba o unutarnjem ustrojstvu Ministarstva pravosuda

Regulation on internal organization of the Ministry of JusticeHR 21

Regulation on internal organization of the Ministry of Justice

Uredba o unutarnjem ustrojstvu Ministarstva pravosudaEN 22

Program: Radionica za voditelje - 60 dana pilot obuke za vježbenike u pravosudu Program training of the trainers: Workshop to develop 60 days pilot training for trainees in the judiciary

HR 23

Law on courts

state judicial council

state attorney’s council



Program training of the trainers: workshop to develop 60 days pilot training for trainees in the judiciaryProgram: Radionica za voditelje: 60 dana pilot obuke za vježbenike u pravosudu

EN 24

Upitnik za potrebe treninga

Training needs questionnaireHR 25

Training needs questionnaire

Upitnik za potrebe treningaEN 26

Dopunjeni prijedlog strategije strucnog usavršavanja Pravosudne akademije

Amended proposal of the multi-annual strategy of professional training

HR 27

Amended proposal of the multi-annual strategy of professional training

Dopunjeni prijedlog strategije strucnog usavršavanja Pravosudne akademije

EN 28

Upute o nacinu anonimizacije sudskih odluka

Instructions on anonymisation of judgements

HR 29

Instructions on anonymisation of judgements

Upute o nacinu anonimizacije sudskih odluka

EN 30

Pravila o nacinu anonimizacije sudskih odluka

Rules about anonymisation of judgements

HR 31

Rules about anonymisation of judgements

Pravila o nacinu anonimizacije sudskih odluka

EN 32

Provisory program for a study visit to Kiztbuehl

Provizorni program za studijsku posjetu Kitzbuehlu

EN 33

Zakon o vježbenicima u pravosudnim tijelima i pravosud om ispitu

Act on Judicial trainees and bar exam

HR 34

Act on Judicial trainees and bar exam

Zakon o vježbenicima u pravosudnim tijelima i pravosudnom ispitu

EN 35



Objašnjenje: Prijedlog Zakona o vježbenicima u pravosudnim tijelima i pravosudnom ispitu (za Sabor)

Explanation of the Draft of the Judicial Trainees and Bar examination Act (for Parliament)

HR 36

Explanation of the Draft of the Judicial Trainees and Bar examination Act (for Parliament)

Objašnjenje: Prijedlog Zakona o vježbenicima u pravosudnim tijelima i pravosudnom ispitu (za Sabor)

EN 37

Logframe 38

Overall plan of operations 39

Plan of operations for the next reporting period 40

“Man-days used” 41

Financial planning and cashflow prognosis 42

Use of incidential budget 43

Inception report 44



By our signature we confirm and approve this first pro ress report.

Date:

(Member State / Project leader)

Date:

(Croatian team leader)

Date:

(Croatian team leader)

Date:

(Senior programme officer – Ministry of Justice)

_______________________________

Name: Ms. Britta Schwarz

_______________________________

Name: Ms. Ivana Goranic

_______________________________

Name: Ms. Koraljka Bumci

_______________________________

Name: Ms. Marina Dujmovic Vukovic

progress report 1pak.hr/cke/pdf eng/progress 1 report 091008[1].pdf · 2012-01-31 ·...

Documents