Minutes ENCJ Working Group on Development of Minimum Judicial Standards 1 st Meeting / Brussels, 13 th December 2010

Transcription

1 Minutes ENCJ Working Group on Development of Minimum Judicial Standards 1 st Meeting / Brussels, 13 th December 2010 Present: Antonio Monserrat Quintana (Coordinator), José Miguel García Moreno (Spain); Nicole Roland, François Libert (Belgium); Monika Vyšniauskiene (Lithuania); Willem Korthals Altes (Netherlands); Gratiana Isac (Romania); Andrew Normand (Scotland); Petria McDonnell (Ireland); Katarzyna Gonera (Poland); Klára Czene (Hungary); Gustav Bygglin (Finland); Gabriele Fiorentino (Italy); Elga Tsoneva (Bulgaria); Bernhard Hostek (Austria); Bredrik Bohlin (Sweden); Karl Arne Utgard (Norway); Sven Marius Urke (international member of the High Judicial Council of Bosnia- Herzegovina); 1. Opening.- Mr. Antonio Monserrat Quintana opened the meeting, expressed his condolences for the recent terrorist attack in Stockholm and welcomed every member of the working group present. He introduced himself as member of the General Council for the Judiciary of Spain and coordinator of the working group and asked the members of the working group who were not present at the kickoff meeting of the working group in Leuven to introduce themselves. The members of the working group who did not attend the kick-off meeting introduced themselves indicating their country of origin and current position. The purpose of this meeting is mainly to discuss on the collected information regarding standards of recruitment, selection, appointment and promotion of members of the Judiciary. This information has been collected on the basis of the responses provided by Councils for the Judiciary represented in the working group and by other ENCJ members and observers to the list of questions circulated by the coordinator of the working group. 2. Final approval of the minutes of the kick-off meeting held in Leuven.- The draft version of the minutes of the kick-off meeting held in Leuven on October 2010, which had been previously circulated among all the members of the working group, were formally approved by all the members of the working group present. The approved version of the minutes of the kick-off meeting is attached as exhibit n Final approval of the Project Fiche.- The draft Project Fiche, which had been presented by the coordinator of the working group, Mr. Antonio Monserrat, during the plenary session of the Project Teams held in Leuven in the afternoon of Tuesday 12 October, was formally approved, including the revision of the language aspects of the draft version of the document made by the representatives of the Judges Council of England and Wales, of the Judicial Council of Scotland and of Courts Service of Ireland, Mr. Michael Walker, Mr. Andrew Normand and Mrs. Petria McDonnell. There was some discussion between the members of the working group regarding the proposal of changes in the wording of the Project Fiche made by the representative of the Netherlands Mr. ENCJ Working Group on Development of Minimum Judicial Standards minutes of first meeting 13 December 2010 draft

2 - 2 - Willem Korthals Altes, and particularly regarding the use of the words common judicial standards instead of minimum judicial standards. Taking into account the wording of the mandate of the working group by the ENCJ, the members of the working group decided to stick to the English wording of the Project Fiche as revised by the representatives of the Judges Council of England and Wales, of the Judicial Council of Scotland and of Courts Service of Ireland, including the expression minimum judicial standards, which is specifically mirrored in the mandate conferred upon the working group by the ENCJ. The approved final version of the Project Fiche is attached as exhibit n Collection of information from Councils for the Judiciary represented in the working group and form other ENCJ members and observers: current position and analysis of collected information.- Next, the members of the working group present at the meeting explained briefly the system of recruitment, selection, appointment and promotion of members of the Judiciary (and prosecutors, where relevant) of their respective countries on the basis of the responses provided by each institution to the first two issues of the list of questions circulated by the coordinator of the working group. The presentations were made following the alphabetical order of countries: Austria (Mr. Bernhard Hostek), Belgium (Mrs. Nicole Roland); Bosnia-Herzegovina (Mr. Sven Marius Urke); Bulgaria (Mrs. Elga Tsoneva); England and Wales (Mr. Andrew Normand); Finland (Mr. Gustav Bygglin); Hungary (Mrs. Klára Czene); Ireland (Mrs. Petria McDonnell); Italy (Mr. Gabriele Fiorentino); Lithuania (Mrs. Monika Vyšniauskiene); the Netherlands (Mr. Willem Korthals Altes); Norway (Mr. Karl Arne Utgard); Poland (Mrs. Katarzyna Gonera); Romania (Mrs. Gratiana Isac); Scotland (Mr. Andrew Normand); Spain (Mr. José Miguel García Moreno); and Sweden (Mr. Bredrik Bohlin). On the basis of the provided information, Mr. Antonio Monserrat suggested to define the basic models of recruitment, selection and appointment of members of the Judiciary from a comparative perspective. These basic models would include access to the Judiciary with a basic legal background or qualification and a subsequent state competitive examination, and access to the Judiciary among legal practitioners with an extensive previous legal practice and the qualification required for such practice (as solicitors or barristers/advocates). The information provided by the members of the working group and the representatives of other ENCJ members and observers reveals that some European countries combine both basic models to some extent when recruiting, selecting and appointing judges, and that other ENCJ members or observers (for instance, Italy) require some additional qualification to the basic legal background (Law degree) for the candidates to participate in the state competitive examination for access to the Judiciary. In view of this diversity of models, Mr. Antonio Monserrat asked the members of the working group present at the meeting to briefly explain the legal qualification sought as a prerequisite in order to participate in the recruitment or selection process of judges and (where relevant) prosecutors. In Austria the basic qualification required is magister in Law, which implies four years of University studies. No further University studies (such as postgraduate studies) are required in order to participate in the state examination. In Belgium a master in law (five years of University studies) is the only basic requirement in order to participate in the state examination for judges/prosecutors. In Bosnia Herzegovina candidates must have a Law degree (four years University studies), but an additional period of three years legal practice is required for appointment as judges.

3 - 3 - In Bulgaria all candidates to the positions of judges and prosecutors must possess a Law degree (five years University studies) and must pass the state exam for legal competence, which requires a compulsory six months period of legal practice as a trainee-lawyer. In Finland the only basic requirement for access to the Judiciary is a Master degree in Law, which requires four years of University studies. In Hungary there is no additional requirement apart from a degree in Law (five years University studies). In Ireland the basic qualification required for appointment is a Master in Law, which requires four years University studies. All candidates for judicial appointments must be qualified barristers or solicitors and previous period of legal practice (whose duration depends on the judicial position for which the candidate is to be appointed) is required. In Italy a Master degree in Law (five years University studies) and additional postgraduate studies (with an average duration of two years) are required in order to be eligible to participate in the state examination for the selection of judges and prosecutors. In Lithuania the basic requirement for appointment of judges is a degree of Master in Law (four plus two or five years University studies). No further University studies are required. In the Netherlands all candidates to the position of judge must have a degree of Master in Law (four years University studies). There is no requirement of additional postgraduate studies. In Norway the basic requirement is a Master in Law (five years University studies) followed by a period of practice in a relevant field of law (as advocate, civil servant, police prosecutor, etc.). In Poland there is no additional requirement apart from a Degree in Law, which requires five years University studies. In Romania the basic requirement for appointment of judges is a Degree in Law (four years University studies) and no further University studies (such as postgraduate studies) are required. In Scotland a Degree in Law (three or four years University studies) and a University Diploma (one year additional studies) are required. Furthermore eligible candidates for the several judicial posts must be qualified advocates or solicitors with a period of legal practice (five or ten years depending on the judicial office). In Spain the basic requirement for appointment is a Degree in Law (four or five years University studies). At the moment no additional postgraduate studies are required in order to be eligible to participate in the state examination for the selection of judges and prosecutors. In Sweden there is no additional requirement apart from a Master of Laws degree, which implies 4 ½ years University studies. Mr. Antonio Monserrat explained that the new Bologna system of University studies will definitely have an impact on the current requirements regarding the legal education of the candidates eligible for judicial appointment. The new Bologna system, which is currently being implemented in Spain, envisages two different degrees of legal studies: Bachelor in Law, with a three years duration, and Master in Law, with an additional duration of two years. In Spain there is some discussion at the moment as to whether a Master degree in the field of legal practice should be required in order to be eligible to participate in the state examination for judges and prosecutors. An interesting issue regarding prerequisites for appointment is related to psychological aptitude tests which are applied in some legal systems (Austria, Bulgaria, the Netherlands and Romania, for instance). Mr. Monserrat asked the members of the working group whether these tests are deemed necessary and -if so- how they are carried out. Mr. Normand explained that, generally speaking, psychological aptitude tests are not considered necessary in countries with common law systems. The process of judicial selection and appointment among legal practitioners in these countries normally includes a number of references of the candidates aptitudes and character from different sources (other legal practitioners, practising judges, etc.), which would eventually deal with psychological problems of the applicants. On the other hand, the interview of candidates by panels

4 - 4 - in charge of selection of judges also contributes to the assessment of the psychological aptitude of the applicants. According to Mr. Fiorentino, in Italy there was some discussion on this topic. Nonetheless the introduction of psychological aptitude tests has been rejected due to the difficulty to define psychological problems of the candidates which do not constitute mental illnesses. Additionally, the system of periodical evaluation of professional performance of Italian judges and prosecutors also helps assess the psychological balance of practising magistrates. In Norway psychological aptitude tests are not applied in the selection process, since it would be difficult to assess the psychological aptitude of the candidates at the beginning of this process. Mrs. Libert explained that in Belgium psychological assessment of candidates is a pilot project. The assessment is made by means of a psychological test and a personal interview of the candidates with a psychologist prior to the interview with the selection panel. In Lithuania requirements for eligibility of the candidates include a health certificate which covers different aspects, including psychological assessment of the candidates in order to establish their type of personality and formative experiences. In Austria, according to Mr. Hostek, the psychological assessment of candidates consists of a personality test (standardized written or computer based test) and an interview with a psychologist. The assessment helps Presidents of the High Regional Courts prepare the lists of proposals for appointment. Many judges have expressed their views against this type of evaluation of the candidate, but it has to be taken into account that the psychological assessment is done after the candidates have been working at the court for a period of time. The information deriving from the assessment can therefore be checked with the information provided by the colleague judges who work at the same court. Mr. Urke on behalf of the High Judicial Council of Bosnia Herzegovina expressed his view against psychological assessment of candidates to the Judiciary, since it could reduce diversity in appointments and homogenize the profiles of members of the Judiciary. At the same time there is a risk of depriving councils for the judiciary (or other relevant bodies) of their competence regarding judicial appointments and assigning this competence to psychologists and other experts. Mr. Korthals Altes rejected this view and explained that psychological tests of candidates to the Judiciary do not establish a homogeneous profile of judges. According to the practice of the Netherlands the psychological test is an additional tool for assessing candidates judicial skills. Furthermore the results of the test are not binding for the panels in charge of the selection process. This view was shared by the representatives of Austria and Belgium. Mr. Bygglin expressed his scepticism about psychological assessment of candidates. In Finland the psychological assessment is used in order to evaluate leadership capacities of candidates to specific judicial offices, such as presidents of courts. Some members of the working group expressed their concern about the risk for judicial independence arising from psychological assessment of candidates to the Judiciary. There was discussion about this risk in some of the ENCJ member states (such as Italy or Belgium). The members of the working group agreed that safeguards for judicial independence should be established avoiding participation of the Executive branch of power in the psychological assessment of candidates. Regarding this issue, Mr. Korthals Altes explained that in the Netherlands the psychological assessment of candidates is done by independent private psychological practices (who also participate in the assessment of members of other professions). The assessment report cannot be challenged by the candidates, since it is not binding for the panels in charge of making the proposals for appointment. According to Mrs. Czene, in Hungary the assessment of candidates is also done by independent private psychological practices. In Romania, the private independent psychologists in charge of carrying out the assessment of candidates are appointed by the Superior Council for Magistracy for this purpose and their report can be challenged by the candidate subject to assessment.

5 - 5 - Another relevant topic refers to the requirement of good character/reputation by the candidates and the means to evaluate that requirement. Mr. Monserrat invited the members of the working group to explain whether that requirement applied in their respective system. In many of the countries represented in the working group (such as Italy, Spain, Belgium, Romania, Austria, Lithuania or the Netherlands) a previous criminal record or conviction would disqualify candidates from participation in the selection process, unless the criminal record has already lapsed. Moreover, in Italy an additional requirement applies as regards candidates who are already civil servants or practising lawyers, for they are disqualified if a disciplinary action against them has been taken. The issue of the good character or reputation of the candidates is evaluated on a discretionary basis by the Superior Council for the Magistracy when making appointments for some judicial offices, such as Presidents of Courts of Chief Prosecutors. Recently, there was a controversial case which referred to a magistrate whose spouse had been convicted of a drug trafficking offence. In Scotland, according to the information provided by Mr. Normand, a previous criminal record would disqualify a candidate from appointment. Moreover, there is a specific requirement of good character of the candidates to be proposed for appointment by the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland, which makes access to the information provided by bar associations or Law societies on disciplinary records of advocates and solicitors necessary. In Spain the good character or reputation of candidates for specific judicial posts (basically Presidents of Courts and justices of the Supreme Court) is assessed by the relevant organs of the General Council for the Judiciary. This assessment can be done by means of the personal interview of the candidates by the panel in charge of making proposals for appointment (Qualification Committee of the General Council) and on the basis of the reports and references on the candidates provided by the regional Bar associations. References regarding good reputation of candidates to judicial posts by bar associations, practising lawyers and other members of the legal community are also used in Norway, Sweden and Belgium. Mrs. Libert on behalf of the High Council of Justice of Belgium underlined the importance of the diversity of sources (advocates, former bosses, other members of the legal community, etc.) as to the reputation of candidates. Next, Mr. Sven Marius Urke made a brief presentation on the system of judicial appointments in Bosnia Herzegovina. He explained the background of the country with a reference to the war in the Balkans in the 1990s. Judicial reform in the country started with a diagnosis phase, during which 13 diagnosis reports were drafted. In the period from 2001 to 2004 the Office of the High Representative of the UN created an Independent Judicial Commission which restructured the Judiciary in the country through a reappointment process. The cornerstone of the reappointment process was the strengthening of the principle of judicial independence linked to judicial accountability. The process of reappointment was structured through an open competition for the best candidates and was not very popular among judges of the country, since nearly 40% of the judges had to leave the Judiciary. Both Kosovo and Serbia have undergone similar processes, although the way the process has been implemented in Serbia has undermined the credibility of its High Judicial Council. At first the Council of Europe was sceptical about the process of reappointment in Bosnia Herzegovina, but the process has supposed a new beginning for the Judiciary in the country. In 2004 the three existing Judicial Councils of the country were merged in one institution: the High Judicial Council and Prosecutorial Council of Bosnia-Herzegovina, of which Mr. Urke is an international member. The High Council is composed by 11 judges and prosecutors and 4 non-judicial members (two advocates appointed among bar associations members, one member appointed by Parliament and one member appointed by Government). In the process of selection of judges in Bosnia Herzegovina diversity is a very important issue, for gender

6 - 6 - and ethnicity balances need to be taken into account. The process of selection of judges is based on a knowledge examination aimed at strengthening the social perception that the best candidates are chosen. The examination comprises a multiple choice test, an essay and an interview with the candidates. Normally some information as to the background of candidates is provided by the intelligence services of Bosnia Herzegovina, and the information is not always disclosed to the candidates. In the process of reappointment all Court Presidents and Chief Prosecutors were removed from office, due to their close political connections. The Disciplinary Office of the High Judicial Council of Bosnia-Herzegovina records around 1000 complaints against judges and prosecutors per year and the Council itself is not very popular among judges and prosecutors of the country, since it is more demanding on them than the Ministry of Justice. The issue of initial exams as opposed to previous legal services in courts was raised by Mr. Antonio Monserrat. The representative of the Supreme Judicial Council of Bulgaria, Mrs. Tsoneva, explained that in her country an access examination applies to: 1) all available positions of junior judges and junior prosecutors; and 2) positions designated by the Supreme Judicial Council for initial appointment in judicial system bodies, which represent 20% of all available positions in the judicial system bodies. The examination comprises two stages: a written and an oral exam. For other relevant judicial and prosecutorial posts a performance appraisal by a Commission of the Supreme Judicial Council on the basis of general and specific criteria applies. The performance appraisal requires a previous legal service record, the duration of which depends on the post (regional court, district court, administrative court, appellate court and Supreme Court of Cassation or Supreme Administrative Court). According to Mr. Bygglin, in Finland a previous experience in a court of law or outside the judicial system (as a lawyer or a prosecutor) demonstrating the professional competence and personal characteristic necessary for the successful performance of the duties inherent to the judicial position is required for appointment. No initial examination for access to the Judiciary applies in Finland. Initial examinations including an interview with the candidates are used in Hungary in the selection process. The personal interview (with includes legal and personal questions addressed to the candidates) is organised by the Judicial Academy of Hungary and carried out prior to the exams. In Belgium the competition for access to the Judiciary comprises a multiple choice test, and essay (or written exam) and an interview based on a case in order to assess the maturity and ability of the candidates. The interview is done with the participation of 8 people (half of the examination panel), lasts about one hour and its outcome can be challenged before the administrative courts. In Austria the system of initial examination applies, although the interview is only done with regard of the candidates who have passed the exam. According to Mr. Fiorentino, in Italy there is some scepticism about the interview of the candidates as part of the selection process. The interview of the candidates with the examination panels is mainly focused on the succinct explanation provided by the candidates regarding the written examination. In Norway personal interviews with the applicants for judicial posts are becoming more important in the selection process. Mr. Normand explained that in Scotland (and also in England and Wales) personal interviews with the candidates are a key element in the selection process of judges. The interview of the candidates by the selection panel takes about 1 ½ hours. Another issue raised by Mr. Monserrat concerns the requirement of knowledge of foreign languages by the candidates. In Italy the examination in a foreign language (which is chosen by the candidate among English, French, Spanish and German) is part of the public competition for magistrates.

7 - 7 - In Austria and in Hungary legal foreign languages are studied at University, so it is assumed that at least a legal foreign language (two foreign languages in the case of Hungary) are known by the candidates. In Ireland, according to Mrs. McDonnell, it is assumed that all candidates for judicial offices are fluent and proficient in Irish and able to conduct a case in that language. Nonetheless in practice interpreters of Irish language are provided for court hearings if it is necessary. In both Spain and Sweden there are some minority co-official languages that can be used by court users. An interpreter for the minority language can be appointed with no additional costs for the parties if the judge is not able to speak the minority language. The members of the working group present at the meeting agreed that the knowledge of foreign language should not be a compulsory requirement for candidates to the Judiciary, but a prerequisite deriving from the study of foreign languages at University level. Next Mr. Monserrat asked the members of the working group about the standard duration of the preparation of the specific exams to become a judge once legal studies are finished and about the appointment of part-time judges. In Lithuania, according to Mrs. Vyšniauskiene, the private preparation of the exams for access to the Judiciary could take about two months or more, depending on the person and his decision to take an exam. Preparation for the exam could take even up to 6 months. Mrs. Vyšniauskiene also clarified the issue of the security clearance which applies to candidates or the Judiciary in Lithuania. A security clearance is a determination that a person is able and willing to safeguard classified national security information. In order to make this determination, a personnel security background investigation is conducted. This investigation is noncriminal in nature and covers a defined period. The information collected must be sufficient to allow an affirmative or negative determination of a person's eligibility for access to classified information and suitability for employment as a judge. In Belgium the average period of preparation for the examination is one year. This is also the average period of preparation in Italy, although Mr. Fiorentino clarified that this period of time can coincide with the progress of the examination process. Mr. Monserrat explained that in Spain the current standard period of private preparation for the state examination for judges and prosecutors is five years. This period is considered excessively long and some proposals in order to reduce the difficulty of the exams and the time of preparation of the candidates are being analysed and discussed at the moment. In Scotland -as well as in England and Wales- the requirement of the examination of the candidates does not apply. Although it is not a formal requirement it is the norm for successful candidates to have a previous legal practice as part-time judges or recorders. According to Mr. Normand a recommendation against the appointment of part-time judges in Scotland was made in a recent report on civil justice in Scotland. In Italy and the Netherlands there are also practising lawyers that can sit as part-time judges. However, measures have been adopted in order to avoid that practising lawyers exercise judicial functions in the same areas where they practice law. Additionally in the Netherlands a part-time judge who is also a practising lawyer may not sit as a single judge. In Ireland there are specific means for challenging judges who deal with cases involving a solicitor or barrister from the same chambers where the judge used to practice law. Next, Mr. Monserrat invited the members of the working group present to comment on ongoing projects including changes in the systems of recruitment, selection and appointment of judges. In Italy, according to Mr. Fiorentino, there is a discussion on a government proposal directed to separating judges and prosecutors from one single professional career. This proposal would imply the creation of two separate high councils (one for judges and the other for prosecutor) and would require a constitutional amendment. Generally speaking Italian lawyers support the proposal for reform, since they share the view that judges and prosecutors are too close in their professional

8 - 8 - practice, which may undermine the adversarial system that applies in Italian criminal procedure. The proposal would raise problems regarding independence of prosecutors. In this respect it has to be underlined that independence of prosecutors is not fully granted in some European countries (such as Romania or Norway) where the head of the prosecution service is appointed by government and has a connection to the Ministry of Justice. According to Mr. Normand, this is not the situation in Scotland, given the fact that the prosecution service in Scotland has its independence granted by the legislation on devolution. The final question posed by Mr. Monserrat regarded the training period before official appointment and the institution in charge of providing such training. Mr. Fiorentino explained that judicial training in Italy will be provided by the Superior School for the Magistracy (Scuola Superiore della Magistratura), which was created by an Act of Parliament, but has not been installed yet. At the moment the provider of judicial training prior to the appointment of judges and prosecutors is the Superior Council (CSM). The training currently lasts 13 months and comprises some theoretical courses and an internship period under the supervision of mentor judges or prosecutors. Part of this period of internship is organised at the court or prosecutor service where the junior judge or prosecutor will later serve. In Bulgaria the training of junior judges and prosecutors is provided by the National Institute of Justice, an independent body. The initial training of judges and prosecutors is mandatory and lasts six months. Junior judges and prosecutors who do not pass the initial training may repeat the examination, but if they fail for a second time they are dismissed from their position. According to Mrs. Gratiana Isac, in Romania training of candidates (auditors of justice) before official appointment is provided by the National Institute of Magistracy, an independent body. This training, which lasts two years, is compulsory, and all candidates must undergo a graduation exam to be appointed. Mr. Bredrik Bohlin explained that in Sweden training of candidates for judicial appointment is provided by the Courts of Sweden Judicial Training Academy, a newly established body. Judicial training is organised on a voluntary and individual basis, but every judge has in practice undertaken some form of training before being appointed. In Belgium, training of judges and prosecutors before appointment is organised by the Judicial Training Academy, which is also in charge of providing continuing training for members of the judiciary. The period of training before appointment lasts 1 ½ years in the case of prosecutors and 3 years in the case of judges. All candidates for appointment are paid during the training period. According to Mr. Bernhard Hostek, in Austria there is no judicial academy or similar body. Training of candidates for judicial appointment is organised jointly by the Federal Ministry of Justice and the High Courts of Justice. The compulsory training activities are delivered by judges of the Supreme Court or high level prosecutors and the training period of trainee judges lasts three years. In Norway newly appointed judges start working automatically after their appointment, since there is no specific training before appointment. After being appointed new judges are expected to undergo seminars organised in three periods by the Court Administration. In Finland, according to Mr. Gustav Bygglin, training of judges is provided by the Ministry of Justice, but there is no specifically organised training period before judicial appointment or for newly appointed judges. In Bosnia-Herzegovina there are two training centres under the authority of the High Judicial Council and Prosecutorial Council. There is no specific training on appointment for judges or prosecutors, but judicial associates must undergo an induction training when commencing their positions, and all newly appointed judges must take the standard 5 days of training per year which applies to all members of the judiciary.

9 - 9 - Mr. Normand explained that induction training of newly appointed judges in Scotland lasts one week and is provided by the Judicial Studies Committee for Scotland, which is part of the judicial office of the Lord President, the Head of the Scottish Judiciary. In Ireland, according to Mrs. Petria MacDonnell, there is no formalised training of newly appointed judges, given the fact that judges are appointed from a pool of experienced legal practitioners. The Judicial Studies Institute, which is chaired by the Chief Justice, was established in 1996 and organises an annual conference of Irish judges. In Lithuania training prior to judicial appointment applies for candidates that have been appointed judges to the district court for the first time. Training is provided by the Training Centre of the Ministry of Justice and currently lasts one month before the judge assumes the duties of the judicial office. The training programme is approbated by the Judicial Council and confirmed by the Minister of Justice. In Spain, initial training of candidates is provided by the Judicial School under the General Council for the Judiciary. The induction training is part of the selection process and lasts two years. The induction training takes place before the appointment of the candidates and consists of two stages (a theoretical phase and a practical period of training in different courts under the supervision of mentor judges). Mrs. Klára Czene explained that the Hungarian Judicial Academy under the National Judicial Council was established in All candidates for judicial offices must undergo a compulsory training in order to qualify as judges or prosecutors. The training period consists of various phases (including theoretical training and other areas, such as mock trials drafting of judgments and nonlegal subjects). 5. Next steps.- Mr. Antonio Monserrat reminded all the members of the working group that the 2 nd meeting of the working group was scheduled for the 18 th February 2011 (Friday) in Madrid. The meeting will take place at the premises of the General Council for the Judiciary of Spain, and will include a guided tour to the seat of the Supreme Court of Spain, which is very close to the main offices of the General Council for the Judiciary. The next meeting of the working group will be focused in the analysis of the collected information concerning minimum standards in the field of judicial training. Exhibit: 1. Final version of the minutes of the kick-off meeting held in Leuven on October Final approved version of the Project Fiche Referent: José Miguel García Moreno