Will the doubts be disproved when we talk about competitions in which judges in the courts of appeal grow...

Recently FACTI has received interesting opinions of magistrates about how to grow in the hierarchy of judges. How are they made? competitions, how choose the members of the competition commissions, who visits whom – among these members… How the guild is kept in general. Protect, but from what and how… When a person who does not have the necessary habilitation, but is elected as a member of a commission that will determine the development and how a given magistrate will grow in the hierarchy… What to think, how to accept it, is it normal. In general, the judiciary is very interesting and for many reasons. But in it, as in any class organization, there are “light” omissions. And is it right.

The procedure for the selection of judges in the Chamber of Commerce of the Courts of Appeal
The existence of an absolute and substantial procedural violation in appointing Assoc. Dr. Vencislav Petrov, who does not have a scientific specialty in commercial law, as a member of the competition commission, was established by judges participating in the procedure for selecting judges in the Commercial College of the Courts of Appeal. And what does this lead to?

This simply supports the thesis that there is an illegal composition of the competition committee, because the participating associate professor Dr. Vencislav Petrov does not have a scientific specialty in commercial law and a habilitation in this scientific discipline. According to generally available public information, he is a specialist only in family and inheritance law and can only assess candidates for promotion in civil law.

There is another. Associate Professor Dr. Vencislav Petrov has never taught commercial law and has not written publications on commercial law. If we look at Art. 189, para. 5 ZSV , there is an imperative requirement that one habilitated scholar of legal sciences in the relevant subject with the academic position of associate professor or professor be appointed in the competition committee.
Assoc. Dr. Vencislav Petrov is a habilitated scholar of legal sciences with the academic position of associate professor, but not in the relevant subject - commercial law, but in civil law.

By the same logic, why are the members - judges of the competition commission - not from the Civil College and the Supreme Court, but from the Commercial College?

In this connection, participants in the competitive procedure for the appointment of judges in the Commercial College of the Courts of Appeal have requested from the Supreme Judicial Council to be publicly announced at a relevant meeting of the Judicial College of the SJC, respectively to be provided with access on the basis of Art. 34 of the APC to the motivated opinions of the competition commission on the ranking announced on 04/03/2024, regarding the competition for promotion to the commercial departments of the appeal courts announced in 2022.

And all this is because among the unranked candidates, and among the ranked ones not by first choice, participating in the two competitions, doubts have been raised about the way in which they were evaluated by the competition committee. The Judicial College of the Supreme Judicial Council itself, in view of the principles of Art. 12 and Art. 13 APC, owes an explanation for the legality of the competition, because there is a clear violation. Respectively, it is proper to discuss his motivated opinions in detail, having previously made them public. In this way, the doubts that have been raised about the obvious bias of the ranking of the candidates will be refuted.
This is important to do as it will enable an informed choice for unsuccessful candidates to appeal the appointments of successful candidates. The SC of the SJC owes such public disclosure in view of the mystique that has existed for years about the specific criteria for evaluating the candidates and negative opinions about the objectivity of the evaluation by the competition commission.

In this sense, it is high time for the SC of the Supreme Court to enter into its role, established by the ZSV, of a controlling body of the competition commission appointed by it as an auxiliary body for the evaluation of candidates. For the lawful and objective conduct of the tenders, it is the SC of the SJC that should monitor it, exercising its control powers for the proper performance of the duties of the respective tender commission.

What past practice shows
The previous practice of the SC of the Supreme Court is indicative of a completely formal verification of the activity of the competition commissions and of justifications in the style of - “… this is what the commission decided and nothing depends on us“.

In Art. 192, para. 1 of the Civil Code, however, imperatively objective criteria are established, which the competition committee is obliged to take into account during the evaluation. It is the compliance with these criteria that should be checked by the SC of the SJC and it is no coincidence that the law requires the competition commission to present a motivated opinion - art. 192, para. 3 ZSV. The judges participating in the competition ask the Judicial College of the SJC, when rendering their decisions under Art. 193 para. 4, possibly under para. 5 of the Civil Code, to put questions to the competition commission regarding compliance with the first, second and third group of criteria for evaluation according to Art. 192 para. 1 of the ZSV.

The judges, participants in the competition, request that the members of the competition committee be heard in connection with specific circumstances that cast significant doubt on its objectivity and impartiality in the evaluation of the candidates.

With these requests, the judges aim to ensure the conduct of a lawful procedure for the appointment of the ranked candidates. It would simply be proper for the Judicial College of the Supreme Judicial Council to exercise its control powers in reality, not formally. Until now, unfortunately, there has been an escape from responsibility, keeping the evaluation criteria secret and using the convenient phrase - “… we cannot interfere with the competition commission“.

Is the check an intervention?

Because it is precisely the inspection that should be carried out that will show whether the assessments are based on the provisions laid down in Art. 192, para. 1 of the HLW criteria. The judges also insist on the basis of Art. 34, para. 3 of the APC that they be provided with the opportunity to express an opinion on the provided motivated opinions of the competition commission, as well as on the submitted requests, by determining the relevant term for this.
Specialists comment that there are similar inconsistencies in the competition for the appointment of judges in the criminal panels of the appeal courts.