50 completed evaluations by the Vetting Commission: The most common reasons for failure

The Judicial Vetting Commission has completed 50 evaluations as part of the process to verify the integrity of sitting judges, as well as legal professionals who have applied for judicial positions or membership in judicial self-administration bodies. The evaluation results reveal that concerns regarding financial integrity were the primary reason for failing the assessment. The most frequent cause of failure was an unjustified discrepancy between declared income and expenses, as well as a lifestyle that did not align with the reported income.

Of the 50* evaluations completed to date, the Commission has adopted decisions in 26 cases. In the remaining 24 cases, it has approved evaluation reports recommending the promotion or non-promotion of the subjects to the Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM). The Vetting Commission issues decisions in cases where it exercises pre-vetting competences, and it approves reports when acting within its vetting competences.

The evaluation reports present the preliminary findings of the assessment process and are submitted to the SCM for review and decision-making. The Commission's decisions take effect after they are formally adopted. Depending on the outcome, the subject either remains in the competition if he or she passes or is excluded if he or she fails the evaluation. Both types of documents adopted by the Commission reflect the same integrity concerns.

The finalized evaluations indicate that the primary concerns leading to failure were financial in nature, rather than ethical integrity issues, which were less prevalent. In many cases, significant discrepancies were found between the subjects' declared assets, expenses, and income. In most instances, these discrepancies exceeded the legal limits, and subjects who could not account for certain sources of income did not pass the evaluation.

Regarding ethical integrity, some evaluations identified violations of ethical standards and professional conduct, including conflicts of interest incompatible with the role of a judge. These issues raised substantial concerns about the ethical integrity of the evaluated individuals.

The Vetting Commission does not assess the professional competence of judges and candidates, nor does it make rulings on the legality of their decisions. However, the Commission has examined whether subjects engaged in arbitrary behavior or issued unlawful acts, which, according to the European Court of Human Rights, violate fundamental rights.

In the attached infographics, you will find detailed information about the number of evaluated subjects who have passed the evaluation and those who have failed, categorized by group.

* The 50 completed evaluations do not include 11 subjects who withdrew or were withdrawn from the competition by the SCM at various stages of the process. Some withdrew during the initial evaluation phase, while others did so closer to the final stages of the verification process.

‍