Honorable Chairwoman of the High Prosecutorial Council, Ms. Mirela Bogdani,
Honorable Chairman of the High Judicial Council, Mr. Ilir Rusi,
Honorable Minister of Justice, Mr. Toni Gogu,
Honorable Prosecutor General, Mr. Olsian Çela,
Honorable Chairman of the Supreme Court, Mr. Sokol Sadushi,
Honorable participants,
Thank you for the invitation and the opportunity to share some considerations within the framework of this fourth joint meeting of our institutions. This joint meeting comes at an important moment, which requires more than reflection; it requires clarity in positions, real coordination, and concrete decision-making. The challenge we have today in front of us, and not only in relation to today’s topic, which has to do with the ethical and professional evaluation of magistrates, but also many other issues related to the organization and functioning of the judicial power, is no longer only the identification of problems, since they are already known, but our ability to address them in a sustainable way, with institutional responsibility and with results as quick and concrete as possible.
Firstly, in every case this process must be real and not formal. The evaluation process must be conceived and built as a reliable mechanism that functions in practice and produces measurable results. The evaluation must cover the entire professional experience of magistrates, the merits of the magistrate, his/her qualification, integrity, ability and efficiency, while respecting the principle of independence of magistrates. The objectives for the professional development of the magistrate must respond to real needs, which arise from the evaluation of his/her work, so that the recommendations for improvement are realistic and possible to be implemented. The objectives for the professional development of the magistrate must derive from the concrete experience of exercising the function and from the daily reality of work. Not from general models nor from approaches detached from practice. Only in this way do recommendations for improvement gain real value, when they are applicable, measurable, and when they truly contribute to increasing the quality of the exercise of duty.
Secondly, the evaluation process must be built in such a way as to ensure the timely ethical and professional evaluation of magistrates. The lack of coherence between the evaluation and the promotion of magistrates must be minimized. An ethical-professional evaluation system that is not based on meritocracy, and that does not serve as a tool for the magistrate’s career, risks weakening the very foundations on which justice is built and creating unfair perceptions in public opinion regarding the organization and functioning of the judicial power. On the other hand, the accumulation of unfinished evaluations is a clear indicator of a system that is not functioning at the proper pace. This backlog creates uncertainty, delays in career development, and weakens the effectiveness of the evaluation process itself. This situation requires immediate measures to reduce the backlog, but at the same time also the taking of a series of measures that prevent its re-creation. Accelerating the process requires not only commitment, but also reorganization and clear monitoring mechanisms.
Thirdly, an equally important dimension is the quality of the evaluation process itself while the review of the ethical-professional evaluation methodology must aim at less formalism and more substance, simplification of indicators, improvement of statistical data, and increase in the weight of qualitative elements or indicators. Improving the quality and reliability of statistical data constitutes an essential prerequisite for building an objective and sustainable ethical-professional evaluation process over time. Without an accurate, complete, and updated database, any effort for evaluation risks being based on partial or inaccurate indicators, thereby undermining the very integrity of the ethical-professional evaluation process of magistrates.
In this regard, it is necessary to ensure the standardization of data collection and processing, as well as the establishment of integrated systems that guarantee transparency, traceability, and controlled access to information. Only through such an infrastructure can statistical data be transformed into a real decision-making instrument, which supports a fair evaluation based on accurate data. At the same time, this process cannot be understood as detached from the infrastructure, material and functional conditions in which the activity of courts and prosecution offices is carried out. For this reason, the improvement of infrastructure and systems of courts and prosecution offices constitutes an essential component, which directly affects the efficiency of work, the quality of data and consequently also the objectivity of the ethical-professional evaluation process of magistrates.
Honorable participants,
The process of ethical and professional evaluation of magistrates is a mechanism that functions only if its links are synchronized. Any lack of clarity in roles, or any delay in cooperation produces chain effects throughout the judicial power. It is time for inter-institutional cooperation not to be based on a formal approach, but to turn into a functional, measurable mechanism oriented toward results.
The role of the High Inspector of Justice is closely linked to guaranteeing integrity and strengthening accountability in the judicial power. However, we must be clear that this is not the responsibility of a single institution. It depends on our ability to act as a coordinated system, where each institution contributes in a measurable and timely manner, and where each institution plays its constitutional and legal role. In this framework, it is worth emphasizing that the harmonization of standards between the High Prosecutorial Council, the High Judicial Council, the High Inspector of Justice, and the Prosecutor General is a necessity. A system with different standards cannot produce an equal process nor public trust.
This approach does not require only goodwill but also requires real action. This meeting today must serve precisely this purpose, by moving from analysis to action; from identifying problems to implementing solutions; from expectations to concrete results. I am convinced that through this joint dialogue and concrete institutional engagement we will succeed in addressing existing challenges and building a more effective, fairer, and more functional ethical-professional evaluation process for magistrates.
Thanking you for your cooperation and your contribution, I wish you good work.
Thank you!
