Gallery
As of 1 September 2013, all courts will to have publish on the Internet their rulings that have been made in open hearings and that have entered into force. This is one of the provisions envisaged by the amendments to the Law on the Judicial Power adopted in the third and final reading on Thursday, 13 June. Concurrently, these amendments provide for increased responsibility and authority of the presiding judges, raising the maximum permissible age of judges to 70 years, as well as provision of other job opportunities or payment of the minimum monthly salary to judges suspended from the office during consideration of disciplinary or criminal charges brought against them; furthermore, these amendments envisage full transition to the so-called direct court system by 2017.
Ilma Čepāne, Chairperson of the Legal Affairs Committee, which was responsible for consideration of this Draft Law, had previously emphasised that introduction of these amendments is a significant step towards greater transparency and efficiency of courts. The obligation to publish on the Internet all rulings made in open hearings and now in force will motivate judges to pay greater attention to the quality of judgements; the Cabinet of Ministers will determine the number of other court decisions to be made public, indicated the Chairperson. In the published decisions, only the part of the document revealing the identity of a natural person will be concealed.
Currently it is required to publish only rulings made in administrative cases; other rulings can be published at the court’s discretion.
Amendments to the Law mark the beginning of full transition to consideration of cases in direct courts ― district (city) courts will be the courts of first instance for any type of case; this eliminates the current provision setting forth that for certain types of cases the court of first instance is the regional court, for appeals it is the relevant Chamber of the Supreme Court, and for cassation it is the Senate of the Supreme Court.
Amendments to the Law will change the structure and competence of the Supreme Court. The Chamber of Criminal Cases and Chamber of Civil Cases of the Supreme Court will be abolished by 2017; furthermore, cases pertaining to cassation will no longer be considered by the Senate but by the three line departments specialising in criminal cases, civil cases and administrative cases, respectively.
Due to the great number of pending cases already filed with the Supreme Court, full transition to the direct court system is expected to end by 2014 for criminal cases and by 2016 for civil cases, that is, until all the cases filed pursuant to the existing procedure have been considered. The Chamber of Civil Cases and the Chamber of Criminal Cases will continue their work until the pending cases filed with the Supreme Court have been adjudicated.
Furthermore, the amendments broaden the functions and authority of the presiding judges of district (city) courts. From now on, the presiding judges will organise the work of their respective courts, promote uniform court practice, ensure transparency of their courts, supervise the quality of their staff and facilitate compliance with the standards of professional ethics.
The amendments will authorise the presiding judges to request other judges to complete procedural actions by a specific deadline or to assign cases to other judges when a particular judge is unable, without justification, to complete these actions necessary for considering a case within a reasonable period.
Amendments to the Law also set forth the maximum permissible age of judges. From now on, judges serving in district (city) courts and regional courts will be able to fulfil their duties until the age of 70. Concurrently, it is envisaged that the Justice Council will not be entitled to extend this period of service for another two years, as could be done until now. Judges who reach the maximum age will not be allowed to continue consideration of cases they have taken.
If a judge is suspended from office on the grounds of disciplinary charges brought against him/her or if he/she is granted the status of a person entitled to counsel under criminal proceedings, upon his/her consent he/she will be assigned to a different position at the court, the Ministry of Justice or the Court Administration with the salary set for the respective position. If the judge rejects this offer, during the term of suspension he/she well be paid the minimum monthly salary. If the disciplinary charge turns out to be ungrounded or if the judge is acquitted, he/she will be entitled to receive the salary and bonuses withheld during the entire period of suspension.