Správa o zasadnutí Európskej asociácie sudcov v Istanbule a prijatá rezolúcia o súlade navrhovaných legislatívnych zmien v statuse sudcov na Slovensku s medzinárodnými štandardmi sudcovskej nezávislosti

SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD BY

THE EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION OF JUDGES – REGIONAL GROUP OF THE I.A.J.

The meeting was chaired by Mr. Gerhard Reissner, First Vice President of the I.A.J. and President of the European Association of Judges–Regional Group of the I.A.J. In attendance were the I.A.J. President Ms. Fatoumata Diakité, the Honorary Presidents Mr. José Maria Bento Company, Mr. Ernst Markel, Mrs. Maja Tratnik and Mr. Günter Woratsch, Vice Presidents Mr. Christophe Régnard and Mr. Virgilijus Valancius, the Secretary-General Mr. Antonio Mura, the Deputy Secretaries-General Mr. Giacomo Oberto and Mr. Lucio Aschettino, as well as the following delegates, representing their respective associations, which are members of the International Association of Judges and of the European Association of Judges:

Albania (observer) – Mr. Haxhiu and Mr. Metalla

Armenia – Mr. Sargsyan

Austria – Honorary President Ernst Markel and Honorary President Guenter Woratsch

Azerbaijan (ext. m.) – Mr. Jafarov, Mr. Mehtiger and Mr. Ayukov

Belgium – Mrs. Lèbe-Dessard and Mr. Van Iseghem

Bosnia and Herzegowina (ext. m.) – Mr. Salihovic and Ms. Tegeltisa 

Croatia – Mr. Sessa

Czech Republic – Mr. Jan Vyklicky

Denmark – Mr. Siöberg

Estonia – Mr. Meelis

Finland – Mr. Katajamäki

France – Ms. Duval and Ms. Valton

Georgia – Mr. Arevadze

Germany – Mr. Franck, Mr. Jünemann and Mr. Schneiderhan

Greece – Mr. Almpouras and Ms. Tsami

Hungary – Mrs. Halasz

Iceland – Ms. Bragadottir and Ms. Ejnarsdottir

Israel – Ms. Alshech and Ms. Zfat

Italy – Mr. Balsamo, Mr. Palamara, Ms. Sica and Mr. Zuccarelli

Latvia – Mr. Bickovics

Liechtenstein – Mr. Hagen and Mr. Nagel

Lithuania – Mr. Valancius

Luxembourg – Mr. Gehlen

Moldova – Mr. Druta, Mr. Radu

Netherlands – Mr. Steenbeek and Mr. Van Zutphen

Norway – Ms. Holm and Thune

Poland – Mr. Piebiak

Portugal – Mr. Igreja Matos and Mr. Latas

Serbia (ext. m.) – Ms. Boljevic

Slovakia – Ms. Bystrianska

Slovenia – Ms. Roblek

Spain – Mr. Chamozzo Fontolea, Ms. Frigola and Mr. Jimenez Fernandez

Sweden – Mr. Adelswärd and Mr. Nyberg and Mr. Sundstorm

Switzerland – Mr. Stadelmann and Mr. Gass

Turkey – Mr. Cil

Ukraine (ext. m.) – Mr. Aleinikov, Mr. Prysiazhniuk, Mr. Reva, Mr. Tkach and

Mr. Zagoruyko

United Kingdom – Mr. Mackay

The President of the E.A.J., Mr. Gerhard Reissner, opened the E.A.J. meeting on Sunday, September 4th, at 10.00 a.m. by welcoming delegates from all member associations and thanking the Turkish Association of Judges and its President, Mr. Murat Arslan, for the perfect organisation of the meeting and for the warm hospitality. After this the President of Turkish Association delivered a welcome speech to all delegates whishing a fruitful and successful meeting. He highlighted the importance of the event and thanked the I.A.J. for choosing Istanbul for this meeting.

President Reissner then welcomed all delegates in assistance, warmly thanking the I.A.J. President, Honorary Presidents, other Vice Presidents and members of the Secretariat for their attendance. The President welcomed as well Ms. Gabriela Knaul, Special Rapporteur of the U.N. on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers.

Deputy Secretary-General Oberto then carried out a check on delegations in assistance, informing that following five Associations were not in attendance : Bulgaria, Cyprus, Ireland, Malta and Romania. After this President Reissner pointed out that a few weeks before the meeting the Secretariat-General had delivered the agenda for the meeting. He asked whether delegations in assistance agreed with the contents of it. No remarks were raised and the President declared the agenda adopted. He then passed to examine the points of it.

1. Approval of the minutes of the EAJ meeting in Malta

President Reissner pointed out that the minutes of the E.A.J. meeting in Malta had been sent by the Secretariat General to all Member Associations. In a month after delivery of the minutes, no remarks had been sent by the Associations. Therefore, according to the general decision taken in Vienna, Mr. Reissner established the minutes from the meeting in Dakar as approved.

2. Report of the President

President Reissner took the floor to illustrate the written report he had sent to all National Associations prior to the meeting in Istanbul, summarizing his activities since the last E.A.J. meeting in Malta. In particular he underlined that the letter sent concerning Bulgaria had provoked some reactions. He mentioned the references made in his written report about Hungary and Slovakia. Mr. Reissner informed the assembly about the initiatives going on with the International Union of Notaries and the conference that was envisaged to take place in Amsterdam in May 2012. He talked also about the meetings of the Presidency Committee that took place between the meetings in Malta and in Istanbul. During the last meeting of the Presidency Committee proposals on membership status had been discussed. No common agreement within the European Association had been reached on this issue in Malta, whilst IBA and African Group had decided to express a view for the abolition of the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary membership; ANAO Group had expressed itself against the suppression of that distinction.

No remarks were raised on the President’s report.

3. Problems concerning the judiciary in several countries

a. Report of the Working Group on the State of Member Associations (Mr. Stephan Gass)

Mr. Gass took the floor to inform the assembly that no special events had occurred

after the meeting in Malta and no requests had been forwarded by member Associations.

b. Situation in Serbia

President Reissner recalled the previous debates which had taken place on this issue and invited the representative of Serbian Association to take the floor in order to inform the Assembly on the re-election or re-appointment process. Mr. Reissner pointed out that even the Serbian Constitutional Court had found that the re-appointment process had been held in a way which was contrary to principles of a fair trial. Their claims to the Constitutional Court of the applicants which had not been re-elected had been transferred back to the High Council by law. The High Council after long debates with international observers and the Judges Association of Serbia had elaborated new rules of procedures which should be applied in the review process. But according to the information coming from Serbian Asociation the High Council was not properly applying these rules which had been accepted by the High Council and put into force by the High Council.

The President of the Serbian Association took the floor in order to inform the Assembly about the negotiations which had been going on in her country between her Association and the local High Judicial Council about the re-appointment process of judges. Procedures followed so far had been deemed as unconstitutional also by many university law professors. The process of re-appointment had been challenged and revised. This new process was still going on, but upon a number of about 200 (out of more than 800) cases which already have been revised only 50 had resulted in a re-installation of judges in their posts. Different criteria had been adopted by the two commissions within the High Council which are charged to carry on this process of review. The current situation is characterised by a great deal of insecurity. Also the President of the Association was not reappointed and her interview was postponed without any reason. The President of the Serbian Association invited the EAJ to address the EU, taking into account the current application of Serbia to become member of the EU.

President Reissner explained he preferred to have a resolution by the Central Council of IAJ; therefore he had already taken contacts with other Regional Groups. Upon proposal by the President the Assembly decided to charge the Working Group to prepare a draft resolution.

The delegate from Croatia Mr. Sessa underlined that in our resolution we should point out that the very process of reappointment is unacceptable; it is not only a question of procedures and remedies against reappointment.

c. Situation in Slovakia

Introducing the subject, President Reissner pointed out that the issue had been debated for a long time. It started especially about the abuse of disciplinary procedures against judges and the role of the president of the Judicial Council. Criticism had been focused on many aspects, particularly on the fact that the same organ which was entitled to start disciplinary procedures was sitting in the panel of the Council which decided about such cases. This and other concerns had led to the mission carried out by former EAJ-president Bjorn Solbakken and Honorary President Günter Woratsch. Later on, the Slovak Association of Judges (ZZS) raised its concerns on several amendments of the law. This had been debated in Malta. A possible resolution was postponed because additional documents were needed. The Slovak Association had provided the Working Group with additional information, and a draft resolution had been prepared. Between the meeting in Malta and the meeting in Istanbul some new developments had taken place, as the report for the Malta meeting prepared by Honorary President Woratsch, which should highlight the overall situation of the judiciary in Slovakia and not deal with concrete legal amendmends had been distributed in Slovakia and had stirred sharp reactions especially by High Council President Mr. Harabin. Mr. Reissner was addressed by the Vice-President of the Slovak Association to give some explanations about this report and answered by explaining its nature.

Mr. Gass pointed out a statement (resolution etc.) on the selection procedure and public statements which do infringe on judicial standards on independence. The question of salaries, disciplinary proceedings has to be examined more closely. On these issues a statement on behalf of the EAJ is not possible so far. It remains an open question if the new regulation concerning the Judicial Academy is incompatible with standards of judicial independence.” Mr. Gass mentioned also the attacks on judges by political authorities, which are intolerable.

The President of Slovakian Association took the floor mentioning the letter sent during the spring on the issue of appointment of judges and of presidents of courts. As far as disciplinary proceedings were concerned Ms. Bystrianska informed the Assembly about current practices going on not in compliance with international standards. Referring to the letter she had sent to all national Association with a draft resolution, she underlined that the amendments to the judges’ status laws in Slovak legislation and new proposals of the amendments were in direct conflict with the Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities. She closed her report thanking the EAJ and its Working Group on the situation of member Associations.

A draft proposal by the Working Group was distributed by the Secretariat-General among all the participants. President Reissner asked Mr. Gass to explain why some issues dealt with in the proposal coming from Slovak Association had not taken into account in the Working Party’s proposal (e.g.: training issues, salaries and social securities, presidents of courts not being members of High Council). Mr. Gass replied to such request, explaining that those issues had been taken into account, but they on a first glance have not been seen as conflicting international standards (training and membership of presidents of court in Judicial Council) or had already been addressed in other resolutions of EAJ (salaries and social security).

Honorary President Woratsch took the floor to explain that his tasks were not those to express appreciation on the system, but just to give an overview about the current situation in Slovakia. His report had been discussed during the meeting in Malta and no remarks were made by Slovakian delegates. In Malta EAJ had decided to send a letter to Slovakian authorities and Slovak Association had been requested to send additional information. No remarks had been made; only some weeks later a letter had been sent by Mr. Harabin. Honorary President Woratsch underlined he never expressed support for certain groups of judges outside the association or for the government and he had only depicted the situation as it appeared to be in Slovakia.

President Reissner underlined that there obviously is a tense situation of conflict in Slovakia. He then opened a discussion on the draft resolution. Delegate from France Virginie Duval took the floor to underline that, as far as the issue of salaries was concerned, this new resolution could make reference to the general resolution adopted in Krakow.

President Reissner then illustrated the contents of two documents delivered to all participants. The first one was an article concerning Croatia, whilst the second was a report prepared by the Turkish colleagues. He informed the Assembly he had as well distributed a paper, prepared by him, about the question of two types of membership within the I.A.J.

President Reissner pointed out as well that during the meeting in Istanbul Slovenian Association of Judges had distributed a questionnaire to be filled by participants. He added that after Malta meeting two such questionnaires had been sent to all member Associations: one by French Association (information concerning declaration of assets of judges) and one by Serbian Association (information concerning status and rights of judges associations). He

Mr. Gass suggested that Associations which organise such initiative share the results of the questionnaires among all member Associations.

After this a discussion took place on the draft resolution concerning Slovakia. A tenth paragraph on the issue of salaries was added.

Upon proposal by the President the Assembly unanimously approved the resolution on Slovakia, which is appended to this report as an annex (see enclosure No. 1). The Assembly unanimously stated that the report prepared by Honorary President Woratsch deserved no criticism and without doubt it was an objective description of the situation in the Slovakian judiciary, which should be expressed in the minutes.

d. Situation in Italy

The President of the Italian Association Mr. Palamara took the floor in order to explain the envisaged reform of justice proposed by the Italian government last March. The first point of this reform is to reduce the independence of the judiciary by strengthening the position of the Minister of justice; the second one is to change the composition of the High Council of the Judiciary by reducing the number of judges elected by their peers among this panel. The current situation of economical crisis somehow stopped this process of reform, but we still have to be vigilant. He asked that the E.A.J. keeps on monitoring the situation.

e. Other countries

The delegate from Turkey Mr. Cil took the floor to illustrate the contents of a written report delivered to all participants on the situation of the judiciary in his Country.

4. Activities of EAJ towards Council of Europe and European Union

As far as Council of Europe was concerned, President Reissner mentioned the participation of Vice-President Régnard in the 17th Plenary meeting of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) in Strasbourg. He informed as well the Assembly that Vice-President Valancius had been involved in the works of an E.U./Council of Europe joint targeted project entitled “Enhancing judicial reform in the Eastern Partnership countries” which targets Moldova, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia and Ukraine. This project intends to provide a multilateral forum for discussing the issues of concern as regards the independence, professionalism and efficiency of the judiciary in the six countries and to formulate recommendations drawing on each country’s own experience and with the reference to the European best practices.

Coming to the European Union, President Reissner explained that a letter to E.U.

Commissioner Ms. Reding had been sent, in order to inform her about the interest of E.A.J.to meet her, but no reply had been sent yet. The same goes for a letter to the chair of the legal committee of the European Parliament.

Mr. Reissner had also registered the E.A.J. within the Transparency Register of the E.U. He requested therefore the Associations to kindly provide him with the exact name of each Association and number of members of it. He had also sent a letter to the Secretary of the Justice Forum, in order to show our interest in participating in its activities. E.A.J. was as well inscribed in the register of green books: this means that our organisation will be informed each time a procedure of green book is opened and E.A.J. will be given the possibility to express its views.

5. Working Party “Ways to Brussels”

President Reissner pointed out that during last meeting in Malta a Working Group had been set up. He invited therefore Associations of Belgium, Denmark, Germany and Netherland to appoint contact persons, so that contacts can be established. The delegate from Germany underlined the necessity to set up a structure within the E.A.J. which can effectively deal with E.U. issues. The delegate of Sweden endorsed this view, underlying the importance of exchange of views via e-mail. The President invited the group to meet during the days in Istanbul to discuss the next necessary steps.

6. Discussion on Possible Amendments of the Status of IAJ (Report of the working group on criteria and procedure for application for membership chaired by Christophe Régnard)

a. Status of ordinary and extraordinary member linked to independence in the country?

b. Possibility to exclude members?

c. Introducing a monitoring system concerning independence

d. Different rights of ordinary and extraordinary members

e. Other issues

President Reissner introduced the issue by making reference to the debates in Malta. He added he had prepared a paper, which had been distributed to all delegates.

A very long and lively debate took subsequently place. Some delegates expressed opinions in favour of keeping the current distinction between two different kinds of membership, while some others said they preferred to have just one kind of membership. The first ones insisted particularly on the need to safeguard the credibility of our organisation. The other ones underlined the need to avoid a situation which could be felt as discriminatory. A part of the discussion was also devoted to the possibility of make a difference between the situation of applicant Associations and the state of the independence of the judiciary in the concerned Countries. Some delegates expressed doubts about the possibility to ascertain in concreto whether an Association is independent, whilst some other delegates underlined the need to take into account only the situation of the Association, even though judicial independence in the Country is not assured, as this aspect does not depend on the judges and the only relevant thing is that the association is really committed to fight for the achievement of judicial independence. Furthermore, the presence of only one kind of membership would enhance the solidarity among all the Associations and would therefore strengthen the position of all Associations, also in Countries in which full judicial independence is not assured.

After this discussion Mr. Reissner called for a consultative vote on the items of point IV of Vice-President Régnard’s report, which is to say on the rights which could be possibly extended to extraordinary members. A clear majority of Associations expressed themselves against such extension.

After an additional discussion the German delegate Mr. Juenemann submitted a draft motion to be presented to the Central Council. This motion was discussed and amended. The final version, which is appended to this report as an annex (see enclosure No. 2) was approved with three abstentions and no votes against.

President Reissner welcomed then Mr. Mario Miccoli, President of the European Affairs Commission of International Union of Notaries. He than gave the floor to the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers Ms. Gabriela Knaul, who delivered an address to the Assembly.

7. Exchange of views concerning other points of the agenda of the Central Council of IAJ

No remarks on this point were raised by the Assembly.

8. Budget information

See enclosure No. 3.

Deputy Secretary General Mr. Oberto took the floor to explain the contents of the document on budget, which is joined to this report as an enclosure.

9. Future meetings of EAJ

The Dutch delegate Mr. Steenbeck took the floor in order to inform the Assembly about the organisation of next E.A.J. meeting in Amsterdam. He added that the programme of the event will be published on the Association’s web page at the following web page: http://www.nvvr.org. Member Associations will be provided with ID and password.

10. Miscellanea

President Reissner informed the Assembly that the Presidency Committee had studied

the financial needs of IAJ, the current system of different levels of fees. He recalled the rules linking the number of participants to fees paid by Associations. He also said the Presidency Committee was in the process of reflecting on the issue of reimbursements of expenses faced by rapporteurs on applications of new member Associations. The Presidency Committee had decided to set up a Working Group on this issue, composed by the Secretariat-General and by a representative of each Regional Group. Belgian delegate Ms. Viviane Lèbe-Dessard declared herself available to represent A.E.J. within this panel and the Assembly unanimously accepted her offer.

President Reissner then informed the Assembly about an information forwarded by CCEJ, which is going to draft a report on problems of the judiciary in member states which should be debated in the plenary of CCJE and forwarded to the Committee of Ministers. It will contain those problems, which had been addressed to the CCJE so far. But there is the possibility to bring additional problems to the attention of CCJE which might be included as well. Therefore CCJE asked EAJ to inform its member associations.

Finally President Reissner informed the Assembly that the draft resolution on Serbia had been prepared and it would be submitted to the Central Council under Miscellanea.

The meeting was closed at 5.00 p.m.

The President of the E.A.J. The Deputy Secretary General of the I.A.J. Gerhard Reissner Giacomo Oberto

Enclosures:

1. Resolution Concerning the conformity with international standards of Judicial Independence of the amendments / proposed amendments to the status of judges in the legislation of the Slovak Republic.

2. Motion to E.A.J. on the issue of two kinds membership (ordinary and extraordinary).

3. Budget 2010-2011 and expenses from 26 October 2010 to 31 August 2011.

1. The European Association of Judges at the meeting in Istanbul on September 4th 2011 unanimously adopted the following

Resolution

Concerning the conformity with international standards of Judicial Independence of the amendments / proposed amendments to the status of judges in the legislation of the Slovak Republic

1. The European Association of Judges is requested by the Association of Slovak Judges (ZSS / Zdrusenia Sudov Slovenska) to consider recent developments in the legislation concerning the judiciary and the proposals of the government for further amendments in this respect. The Slovakian Association expresses serious concerns that the independence of the judiciary is thereby endangered.

2. The European Association of Judges put these concerns to the Slovak authorities. The minister of justice gave an explanation arguing that all these amendments are necessary to re-gain the trust of the population in the judiciary; more control and transparency was necessary.

3. The European Association of Judges analyzed the legal modifications effected, and the further legal modifications planned, by the Slovak government regarding:

• The appointment, nomination and promotion of judges

• The composition of the Judicial Council

• Disciplinary proceedings

• Unjustified criticism of the judiciary.

4. The European Association of Judges stresses that the European authorities have, for many years, established fundamental rules in order to preserve the independence and the impartiality of justice.

5. In this regard the European Association of Judges refers to:

• The Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities,

• the CCJE Opinion n° 1 (2001) on standards concerning the independence of the judiciary and the irremovability of judges,

• the Opinion n° 3 (2002) on the principles and rules governing judges ́professional conduct in particular Ethics, incompatible behaviour and impartiality,

• the Opinion n°10 (2007) on ”Council for the Judiciary in the service of society“, as well as other international documents.

• the CCJE (2010)3 Magna Charta of Judges (fundamental principles),

• the European Charter on Statute for Judges,

• the ENCJ Resolution of Budapest on Self-Governance for the Judiciary:

Balancing Independence and Accountability – May 2008.

6. The European Association of Judges also stresses that these standards have not been enacted for the benefit of judges or their corporate interest, but as the central means of ensuring the necessary independence of Justice within a democratic society.

7. The European Association of Judges underlines once again that independence has to be accompanied by accountability. Under the pretext of accountability, however, this should never result in the other powers of the state gaining undue influence on the judiciary. Transparency of procedures and proper reasoning of decisions are a means of guaranteeing accountability and increasing trust in the judiciary.

8. The European Association of Judges expresses its grave concern that several of the amendments under examination are used to increase the overall influence of the government on the judiciary:

• The Appointment, nomination and promotion of judges – most members of the selection committees, i.e. 3 out of 5 are nominated by the Minister of Justice, and only two by the judges themselves (one by the Judicial Council and one by the president of the particular court).

While the final decision to nominate the candidate for appointment lies with the Judicial Council, the selection committee yet plays a decisive role, which means that the provisions of international documents relevant to the Judicial Council are also applicable to these committees. In this context it is evident that the proposed amendments to alter the composition of the Judicial Council, whereby half of its members will be appointed by the Minister, are a step in the wrong direction and against the current tendency of all international standards. The EAJ refers to para. 18 and 42 of the CCJE Opinion No 10(2007) and Art 5 and 13 of the Magna Charta of Judges (fundamental principles) according to which such a council should contain a substantial majority of judges elected by their peers. Art. 46 of the Recommendation CM / Rec (2010) 12 also requires that at least half of the members should be judges chosen by their peers.

• Disciplinary proceedings – the initiative for disciplinary proceedings against a member of the Judiciary is exclusively placed at the Minister of Justice.

Disciplinary proceedings, or importantly, the threat of such proceedings, must not risk being misused by placing improper pressures on the judge concerned. Accordingly international documents not only place the jurisdiction to hold disciplinary procedures on a court or an independent body, but also promote the establishment of an independent body or person to initiate such procedures. (Art. 69 of the Recommendation CM / Rec (2010)12, para 68, 69 and 77 ii and iii CCJE Opinion 3 (2002) and Art. 6 of the Magna Charta of Judges (fundamental principle). To place the power to commence proceedings with a member of the government infringes the balance of powers. Such an arrangement does not help to increase trust in the judiciary and may increase the suspicion of political interference. What is necessary are quick and fair proceedings before a disciplinary court.

• Unjustified criticism of the Judiciary – inappropriate criticism of the court decisions, specific comments expressing unfounded doubts about the correctness of judicial decisions, as well as the making of offensive statements by representatives of the executive and legislative addressed to judges and the judiciary as a whole.

Abstaining from such practices is the most effective way to increase trust in the judiciary. The EAJ recalls Art 18 of the Recommendation CM/Rec (2010) 12, which states “If commenting on judges decisions, the executive and legislative powers should avoid criticism that would undermine the independence of or public confidence in the judiciary.” Otherwise such criticism not only forms a means of exerting improper pressure on members of Judiciary, but may undermine the trust and respect which citizens have for their legal system. The EAJ urges all branches of the executive to give proper heed to the dangers for judicial independence of inappropriate criticisms of judicial decisions.

9. Having closely watched the developments in Slovakia for many years, the EAJ has followed positive developments, at least in the institutional framework of judicial independence. The European Association of Judges urges the competent Slovak authorities to ensure universally recognised standards of judicial independence, to uphold them at all times, and to take no measures which might compromise them. The EAJ is willing to assist in finding a balanced way to increase public trust in the judiciary without infringing its independence.

10. The Slovak Association of Judges (ZSS / Zdruzenie Sudcov Slovenska) has also expressed concerns over reductions in judicial salaries, benefits and other rights. In that regard the European Association of Judges draws attention to the resolution on the remuneration of judges which it adopted on 16 May 2009 at its meeting in Cracow, a copy of which is appended to this resolution.

Istanbul 4 September 2011

2. Motion to E.A.J. on the issue of two kinds membership (ordinary and extraordinary)

In order to safeguard the credibility of IAJ on the one hand, to avoid discrimination and support member associations of younger democracies on the other hand, EAJ decides to ask the Central Council to start a process of change of the Statutes on membership with the following goals:

1) In the future there shall be the possibility of exclusion of member associations for other than financial reasons.

2) To safeguard the fulfilment of the criteria for membership in IAJ each association has to undergo regular monitoring and has to deliver an annual report on its situation that has to meet certain criteria.

3) IAJ abolishes the extraordinary membership and provides only one status of membership.

4) The process of change of statute is to be initiated immediately.

5) The independence of the judiciary in the concerned countries should not be considered

as a criterion for admission of members.

EAJ Budget per Istanbul

3. Budget 2010-2011

and

Expenses from 26 October 2010 to 31 August 2011

(in EURO)

Reserves: + 15.564,31

Contribution from the IAJ for the year 2010-2011: + 3.000,00

Total availability for the year 2010-2011: + 18.564,31

Travel expences of the EAJ delegation to Bulgaria: – 1.594,47

Travel expences of Mr Regnard for the CEPEJ Meeting: – 306,90

Total expences: – 1.901,37

Availability on 31 August 2011: + 16.662,94