CCJE-BU(2018)1Prov2

Strasbourg, 17 January 2018

CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN JUDGES (CCJE)

Please in your answers do not send extracts of your legislation but describe the situation in brief and concise manner.

Comments on what is also happening in practice, and not only on point of law, will be much appreciated.

Introduction

The first section deals with the concept of judicial integrity, how it is understood, why it is important and through which mechanisms it is achieved or provided for in member States of the Council of Europe.

The second section proceeds to discuss corruption as one of the main threats to the judicial integrity, as well as the perceived reasons for corruption in member States.

The third section highlights how corruption is prevented and penalised – at legislative, institutional and operational level - and the role of specialised bodies and different professional groups.

The Bureau and the Secretariat of the CCJE would like to strongly thank you for your cooperation and contributions.

1. Concept of judicial integrity[1]

1.1      How is the concept of judicial integrity realised (or fostered) in your country and is it formally set out in regulatory framework (for example, codes of ethics and conduct), or rather informal, defined at various levels and applied in practice through common understanding? Or is it a combination of both approaches, to various extents?

2. Corruption as one of the main threats to the judicial integrity and its reasons

2.1      How is corruption of judges defined in your country: at legislative or other regulatory level, or through common understanding, or through combination of both approaches?

2.2      Is corruption considered particularly dangerous when it affects judges, in comparison with other public officials, and if yes, then why? Are the consequences of corruption among judges considered more serious than consequences of corruption among other public officials?

2.3      How are the reasons for corruption among judges perceived in your country? Is there a difference between perceived reasons for corruption among judges and perceived reasons of corruption among other public officials?

2.4      Have there been any recorded cases of judicial corruption and, if yes, how were they dealt with? Is there any statistical data on judicial corruption?

2.5      Is there any difference between the perception of corruption and the actual extent of corruption in your country? If the answer to this question is affirmative, please briefly describe which factors may influence such discrepancy.

3. Penalties for and prevention of corruption

3.1      What are the penalties for corruption of judges in your country: criminal, administrative, civil, disciplinary and others?

3.2      Are the penalties for judges the same as for other public officials in your country, or they have particular differences (for example, the prohibition to hold a judicial office, either for limited or indefinite period of time)?

3.3      Are they established only by legislation or also by other regulatory documents?

3.4      Are such penalties perceived as having a punitive or preventive effect, or both?

3.5      Are there any special bodies in charge of investigating corruption in general, or corruption of judges in particular?

3.6      Are there specialised prosecutors in charge of prosecuting corruption in general, or corruption of judges in particular?

3.7      Are there specialised courts or judges in charge of cases of corruption in general, or of cases of corruption of judges in particular?

3.8      Other than the penalties which are considered as having preventive effect, how does your country strive to achieve and provide for judicial integrity and prevent corruption among judges:

·         at regulatory level: codes of ethics and conduct, internal regulations etc.

·         at institutional level guaranteeing the independence of judges: councils for the judiciary, judicial self-governing bodies, associations of judges etc. and their role in preventing corruption among judges;

·         at operational level: proper conditions of work compatible with the dignity of the judicial mission (for example, levels of judicial salaries, pensions and other social benefits; proper working spaces and equipment; proper staff and secretarial support and other aspects important for efficient fulfilment of judicial functions).

3.9      As regards the levels of judicial salaries, pensions and other social benefits (for example, medical insurance, family allowances etc.), how are they defined and calculated in your country? Is there any correlation with the salaries, pensions and other social benefits of other public officials (for example, salary of a Justice of the Supreme Court being equal to the salary of a Minister in the Government, etc.)

3.10    Is there an obligation for judges to declare their assets, as well as those of members of their families, and if yes, is it the same as for other public officials? Are declarations of assets accessible to the public and, if yes, in what form (free access, access with some restrictions, access subject to some kind of permission)?

3.11    What are the mechanisms of recusal, self-recusal included, of judges in your country? Please briefly describe. Are there any rules governing judges’ activities outside the court and in his/her personal life aimed at preventing potential conflicts of interest?

3.12    You were asked in 2014 to describe the performance evaluation system for judges in your country for CCJE Opinion No. 17. Please describe any changes in the system which have occurred in the meantime, since 2014.  

3.13    What is the role of training in preventing the corruption among judges?

3.14    Is your country a member to international instruments and mechanisms for preventing corruption and did it establish effective international cooperation? Please provide brief examples, if possible.

3.15    Any other point you wish to raise.