Strasbourg, 15.10.2024 – The Armenian authorities’ efforts to improve the current system of evaluation and the accountability of judges are welcome, but the draft amendments to the Judicial Code of Armenia regarding judicial evaluations need further refinement to safeguard judicial independence while raising efficiency of the process. This is the key finding of the joint opinion published by the Venice Commission and the Directorate General Human Rights and Rule of Law of the Council of Europe (DGI).
Concerns have been raised about the current system of evaluation of judges in Armenia due to the excessive workload and ongoing reports of judicial cronyism and self-protection. The fact that nearly all judges receive overly positive evaluations (90% are rated “excellent”), despite a reported general lack of public trust in the judiciary, raises credibility issues.
The draft law aims to reform the system of regular judicial evaluations by the performance evaluation commission (PEC) through several measures, including a significant increase in the number of lay members in the PEC and a higher frequency of evaluations.
While it is reasonable to consider enlarging the evaluation body, which currently comprises only five members who struggle to review all evaluation files in a timely manner, it is essential that any such an increase maintains a balanced proportion between lay and judicial members. The Venice Commission and DGI caution against an excessive rise in the number of lay members, which could result in judges becoming a minority.
Read also
“Safeguarding judicial independence should remain the paramount concern”, the opinion reads. Besides, profound understanding of the complexities of judicial responsibilities is crucial in assessing judicial performance. Inclusiveness within the evaluation body can be better achieved through alternative measures, concludes the Venice Commission.
As for the proposal to increase the frequency of evaluations, it should be accompanied by strengthening entry-level selection mechanisms, which would reduce the need for too frequent evaluations during a judge’s tenure.
The key recommendations by the Venice Commission and DGI include:
- The operational structure of the evaluation body may involve various groups; however, it is advisable that evaluation decisions be approved, preferably, by the full composition of the body, which could be less numerous than 25 members.
- The PEC should maintain a balanced proportion between judicial and lay members, with judges retaining a majority.
- Inclusiveness of lay members can be enhanced by adopting rules on quorum and decision-making majorities to ensure that lay members have a meaningful impact on evaluation decisions.
- The representation of first-instance judges in the PEC should be reduced, and a greater emphasis placed on senior judges from higher courts.
- The Judicial Department should be removed from the list of entities nominating lay candidates.
- The duration of the evaluation body’s mandate should extend beyond a single evaluation cycle, favouring the existing four-year term.
- The frequency of regular evaluations should be extended to a period of more than two years.
- The decisions of the evaluation body should be subject to external appeal review, preferably before a court.
During this Plenary Session, the Venice Commission has also adopted the Joint Opinion on the draft amendments to the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code concerning the collection of evidence without consent in criminal investigations, and the Joint Opinion on the draft laws amending and supplementing the Law on Mass Media and the Civil Code.
The opinions on the evaluation of judges and on the Criminal Procedure Code were prepared under the Quick Response Mechanism (QRM) in the framework of the European Union and the Council of Europe joint programme Partnership for Good Governance, co-funded by the Council of Europe and the European Union and implemented by the Council of Europe.
