ANALYTICAL NOTE. Vulnerabilities of the draft law amending certain normative acts (strengthening the mechanism for evaluating judges’ performance)

⚖️ An “exceptional” mechanism that never ends is no longer exceptional. It becomes the rule.

The Ministry of Justice proposes extending vetting to around 200 judges of the first-instance courts. The draft law has already been submitted to the Venice Commission. We analyzed every article. Here is what we found:

🔴 Judges will be assessed according to the strict criteria of vetting — assets over a 12-year period and a reversed burden of proof — but WITHOUT the guarantees of vetting: no guaranteed public hearing, no clear right to challenge the report.

🔴 The 40% threshold that may lead to dismissal is not set by law, but will be decided through regulations.

🔴 The explanatory note itself acknowledges that the judges being evaluated will elect 4 out of the 6 judge-members of the future Superior Council of Magistracy. Eliminatory evaluation + elections = a risk that the Venice Commission has repeatedly called by its name.

🔴 The draft law was submitted to Venice BEFORE any public consultation at home. Law No. 239/2008 on transparency in decision-making? Ignored.

We support integrity in the judiciary. But integrity cannot be built by violating one’s own rules.

We call for real public consultations, procedural guarantees for the judges being evaluated, and the decoupling of the evaluation process from the elections to the Superior Council of Magistracy.

Full analytical note below 👇