Back
Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
The Council of Judges has published the profile of a candidate for the position of member of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) from the judges' congress quota.
The initiative is good. But there is one “but”...
So, the total number of candidates for the 8 HCJ member positions is 71 persons.
All of them hold the status of judges or retired judges.
Gender composition – 44 men, 27 women.
Court level:
first instance (judges of local general, commercial, and district administrative courts) — 43 persons,
appeal — 18 persons,
Supreme Court judges – 5 persons,
judges from other judicial institutions (Specialized Anti-Corruption Court, Constitutional Court, Administrative Court of Appeal, retired judge) – 5 persons.
Of all the candidates, 68 persons are current judges, 3 are retired judges.
Also, two serving members of the High Qualification Commission of Judges expressed a desire to become HCJ members.
And here it would be entirely appropriate to indicate how many members of the Council of Judges decided to run for the HCJ.
That would be honest statistics, since the Council of Judges shows how many members of the High Qualification Commission are candidates for the HCJ.
However, there are no figures regarding members of the Council of Judges.
Why are they being kept secret?
Because it would have to be acknowledged that serving on the Council of Judges is interesting only as a springboard to the High Qualification Commission and the HCJ?
And it would have to be acknowledged that some members of the Council of Judges publicly lied at the judges' congress that took place in March?
From the podium they promised the entire judicial community that they were going to the Council of Judges for two years to represent judges' interests in the judicial self-governance body.
And now it turns out that they actually didn't join the Council of Judges to serve, but to look for a better springboard into the HCJ?
It looks very bad… Don't you agree?
