[ad_1]
Deputy President of the Supreme Court, Sokol Sadushi in a press conference said that the challenge of this institution remains to reduce the number of backlog cases.
He said that over 35 thousand cases are waiting to be resolved in the Supreme Court.
“In the High Court 9 judges, we are waiting for another 15. The big challenge is the high number of backlog issues that have their origins since 201. Reducing the high number of backlog issues requires time and commitment.
Over 35,000 cases are awaiting resolution in the Supreme Court. Behaviors of lawyers inconsistent with the legal practice and the regulation of this court “, said Sadushi.
For 2021, said Sadushi, the Supreme Court has issued 3,609 decisions, of which 1,182 administrative decisions, 1,336 civil decisions and 1,091 criminal decisions.
Among other things he said that it should be borne in mind that the load in one year, of a judge of the Supreme Court has gone beyond any limit, with over 500 issues.
“Despite the very high number, the quality of decision-making has not gone unnoticed. It is enough to analyze the unifying decisions (5 in the criminal field and 2 in the administrative field), as well as many decisions with public influence that testify to the increase of trust in this Court “, he said.
Full word
After a very intensive year and charged with developments in the organization and functioning of the High Court, I have the pleasure, but also the obligation, to inform the public opinion on the activity of this institution that stands at the top of the judicial pyramid.
Already, this Court is performing its constitutional function, trying to convey to the public the confidence and hope that the situation is changing. We are aware that public opinion expects from us, more effectiveness, a higher pace of judgment and consequently more results.
The Supreme Court does not stop looking for new ways, means and ways that ensure speed, accuracy, quality and transparency in decision-making. The situation in the Supreme Court is in a dynamic development and such is foreseen during 2022. We know what and how to do, to get out of the collapse, in which we found this institution. This requires patience and understanding.
We are closing a year with positive developments, in terms of high pace of work, clear methodology followed by the judiciary, giving hope for the start of reducing the number of backlog cases, but also a reasonable increase in the staff of the Court of Justice. Up. During this year 6 more judges were appointed, while we are waiting for 5 more.
It is almost unbelievable, but with only 9 judges we have managed, through a careful calculation, to form 9 judicial bodies, with three judges each, who judge regularly, according to the respective colleges and fields, every day of the week. This workload has required the maximum commitment of judges, who despite the fact that they have been elected to the respective panels, perform their duties as part of various judicial bodies. The judges of this court are aware of the responsibility they have had to bear in this unusual situation for the Supreme Court in particular and the justice system in general.
Obviously judges can not perform this task alone. The appointment of 4 legal advisors by the HJC was accompanied by the addition, also, by the High Court Council of the staff of administrative staff with judicial civil servants, especially in the sector of the directorate of judicial administration and in the sector of information technology. This is the year of the establishment of the Documentation Center, a completely new model with high expectations of success for the analysis, study, documentation and thematic publication of the decision-making of the Supreme Court, which is being realized in cooperation with counterparts of German high courts and italiane.
The adaptation of the legal framework to the needs and requirements of cassation trial, with the main focus on the return of the High Court to the court of law and its separation from the practice of reviewing facts and evidence, have brought positive effects in increasing the speed and quality of decision-making. which are expected to yield even more tangible results in the coming years. These legal changes have increased the effectiveness of the three-judge panel, made it possible to make 7 unifying decisions, as well as review the validity of normative acts with 5 judges, have strengthened the power of the deliberation room, increasing the number of decisions taken at this stage, they have consolidated the role of the single judge in reviewing the request for exemption, but also in filtering recourses with defective forms, just as they have made effective the fine punishment of lawyers for abusive recourses, etc.
However, the presentation of some key statistics on the decision-making of the Supreme Court during 2021 is very important for informing the public.
Although the number of new cases registered with the Supreme Court as of January 1, 2021 has reached 2,847 (of which 1,340 civil, 547 administrative and 960 criminal), the number of 35,837 cases awaiting trial is on the decline. The good news is that the number of decisions taken during 2021 is higher than the number of registered cases. For 2021, the Supreme Court has issued 3,609 decisions, of which 1,182 administrative decisions, 1,336 civil decisions and 1,091 criminal decisions. This number would have been much higher, if the Court had had 9 judges from January 1, while until April 2021 it has functioned with only 3 judges, in the period April-September 2021 it has functioned with 7 judges and since the end of September with 9 judges.
With such data, the judges of the High Court turn out to have a percentage of evasion of cases of 127%, a very high figure, referring to the standards of CEPEJ, which was positively assessed in the one-year report of the European Commission on ” “The Expansion Package.” Of course, this figure, compared to the number of backlogs can be considered relative, however it should be borne in mind that the workload per year, of a High Court judge has gone beyond any limit, with over 500 cases. Despite the extremely high number, the quality of decision-making has not gone unnoticed. It is enough to analyze the unifying decisions (5 in the criminal field and 2 in the administrative field), as well as many influential decisions in the public that testify to the increase of trust in this Court.
The biggest challenge for the Supreme Court remains the extremely high number of backlog cases awaiting consideration, but this has not diverted its attention from the demands for increased quality and gaining legitimacy of decision-making. Backlog is not a phenomenon created today, nor because of justice reform. As the ECHR points out, when analyzing the Albanian case in a recent decision, the backlog dates back to 2012.
Reducing the high number of backlogs requires time, but also a coherent and fruitful strategy. The Supreme Court is aware of the situation in which it finds itself and, therefore, has drafted, together with the HJC and Justice for All, an action plan, which presents some measures taken alone, or in cooperation with the responsible institutions. This action plan has been made public on the website of the High Court which is periodically reviewed by it, in order to adapt to the current situation.
However, despite the measures taken by the Supreme Court, it is presented as a necessity to change the legal mentality, but also the approach to the means of appeal, in general, and recourse, in particular. The evasion of backlog cases should not be understood as a matter for the Supreme Court alone.
It should be accepted as a concern related to the level of professional representation of both public institutions and lawyers.
For this reason, every recruiter and, in particular, public institutions have every opportunity to do their job of reducing backlog. It is enough to refer to the figures in years to understand that about 70% of the submitted recourses fail to pass the eligibility test. Such a figure testifies to the very high number of openly unfounded recourses submitted to the Supreme Court. Reviewing recourses is definitely a task of this Court, but, on the other hand, it is necessary to make public institutions, the State Advocacy and lawyers aware that failing the test of admissibility of recourses is a responsibility of their work.
In this regard, it is necessary for the public institutions to reconsider the recourses submitted by them for cases that do not have topicality or public interest, due to the way the recourse is formulated, due to the loss of cases at both levels of trial, but also the execution of decisions by the winning parties. Such cases have as their object the compensation for employment relations or other compensations, which have been executed and, moreover, do not represent any interest to pursue in the High Court, even due to the consolidated practice that is holding up with recourse rejections, are significant. Thus, for the period 2013-2020, in the administrative field there are 3082 cases, while in the civil field there are 2322 (5404 in total), in which the losers are public bodies. The same situation occurs in criminal cases, where the prosecutor has been a loser in 2015 cases, while some of these cases have clearly lost their relevance. So, in total there are about 7,419 cases, which in terms of passing the admissibility test, having an effective and coherent justice, but also in the protection of public interest, remain to be assessed by public institutions, if the recourses are current and respond to the practice and standards that the Supreme Court has set in these two years.
It is deemed extremely necessary to bring to the attention of the public another concern that may face the Supreme Court, in the near future, with the risk of creating a “new” backlog. The conduct of the lawyers still remains inconsistent, both with the new legal requirements and with the consolidated practice of this Court. It is necessary to understand that not every judicial dispute must necessarily go to the Supreme Court. A large number of cases are finally reviewed and resolved at the lower two levels of the trial, and the chances of this decision being reversed in the Supreme Court are slim, even in many non-existent cases. The trial in the Supreme Court is a trial of law and not a trial of fact and this principle must be observed by all.
Of course, GJL, through a very transparent process that is evidenced on its official website is trying to maximally guide law practitioners with its decisions, unifying and with the daily practice it follows, but also by filtering the recourses that come . But much depends on public institutions, the State Advocacy, as well as the chambers of advocacy, who must follow the practice of the High Court, in order not to invest it in unnecessary but also unsuccessful matters.
Expresses the belief that the combination of measures and behavior of public institutions and lawyers with the decision-making of the Supreme Court will lead to a more visible result in the percentage of cases that the Court will evade in the coming years.
However, restoring trust in the justice system is and remains the core challenge of the Supreme Court, a day-to-day challenge that requires maximum commitment from all judges, legal advisers and administrative staff. We are aware that this challenge can not be overcome without the contribution of all and without changing the approach to daily practice. Despite these, the Supreme Court will continue to make every effort to carry out its constitutional mission and restore effective justice in the service of the public.
top channel
[ad_2]
Source link