Following the withdrawal of a complaint by a judge, the Disciplinary Court has terminated the proceedings in the case against the decision of the Judicial Qualification Committee, which assessed the professional performance of the judge as positive after three years of service but gave an opinion for reappointment for a period of up to two years. At the same time, the Disciplinary Court held that the decision of the Judicial Qualification Committee must be reasoned and the judge has the right to appeal against the decision.

The district court judge had lodged a complaint with the Disciplinary Court against the decision of the Judicial Qualification Committee, stating that the decision of the Committee on temporary reappointment was not reasoned.

Having read the explanation of the Judicial Qualification Committee provided to the Disciplinary Court, which supplemented the general summary of the assessment of the judge's performance with a detailed statement of the reasons for the assessment, the judge no longer upheld his request for the complaint to be examined on the merits, but requested the Disciplinary Court to address the duty to state reasons for the decision of the Judicial Qualification Committee.

The Disciplinary Court held that if the complaint is withdrawn, the grounds for continuing legal proceedings and examining a case on the merits disappear. At the same time, the Disciplinary Court considered it appropriate to state in general terms that, first of all, the decision of the Judicial Qualification Committee to reappoint a judge for a period of up to two years is subject to appeal before the Disciplinary Court.

The law “On Judicial Power” states that the Disciplinary Court shall review the lawfulness of negative opinions issued by the Judicial Qualification Committee within the assessment of the professional performance of judges. Although the decision under appeal states that positive opinions have been given on the assessment of the judge's professional performance, those opinions must be assessed in relation to their importance for the judge's career. Since, because of those opinions, the judge was not promoted to a permanent appointment and will be subject to a reassessment of his professional performance in two years' time, such a decision of the Judicial Qualification Committee has overall negative consequences for the judge and, in fact, amounts to a negative assessment of his professional performance which is subject to appeal before the Disciplinary Court.

Secondly, the Judicial Qualification Committee is required to state the reasons on which its decision is based.

Although neither the law “On Judicial Power”, nor the Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Qualification Committee lay down requirements for the opinion giving, the Disciplinary Court reiterated the reference made in its earlier decisions to the need to ensure such content of opinions which, in general, complies with the principle of giving reasons and enables the Disciplinary Court to verify the lawfulness of the opinion of the Judicial Qualification Committee.

The Disciplinary Court has also pointed out that the principle of human dignity also requires that, when decisions which affect the rights of individuals are taken, the individual must be treated as a subject and not as an object to be decided upon, and that the necessary reasons must therefore be given to enable the individual to understand why certain decision is adopted.

Additional information

Pursuant to Section 60 of the law “On Judicial Power”, a judge of a district (city) court is appointed by the Saeima (parliament) for three years upon the proposal of the Minister of Justice. After three years in office, a judge of a district (city) court shall be confirmed in office by the Saeima, upon the proposal of the Minister of Justice, based on an opinion given by the Judicial Qualification Committee during the assessment of the judge's professional performance, without limitation of term of office or reappointed for a period of up to two years.

 

Information prepared by

Rasma Zvejniece, Head of the Division of Communication of the Supreme Court

E-mail: rasma.zvejniece@at.gov.lv, telephone: +371 67020396, +371 28652211