9 Amendments of Kostas CHRYSOGONOS related to 2018/2169(DEC)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Points out that the CJEU shall deliver justice of irreproachable quality, in a reasonable time, whilst as an EU institution also ensuring it uses the public funds at its disposal as efficiently and as effectively as possible, and according to the principles of sound financial management;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Stresses that introducing performance-based budgeting should not apply only to the Court of Justice's budget as a whole but should include the setting of specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and time-based (SMART) targets to individual departments, units and staffs' annual plans and to set relevant indicators for drawing up the institution's estimates; calls therefore on the Court of Justice to introduce the principle of performance-based budgeting more widely in its operations;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Welcomes the EU decision [regulation (EU, Euratom) 2015/2422] to reform the judicial structure of the CJEU, notably by doubling the number of Judges in the General Court by 2019, while subsuming the work of the Civil Service Tribunal into the General Court as from 1st September 2016; believes that these measures will reduce the backlog of pending cases, engender a positive impact on the quality of the judgments, and increase flexibility and rapidity by allocating Judges to the Chambers according to the caseload in different areas;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Welcomes the fact that the Court of Auditors’ recommendation that the time-frames should be further refined by taking into account the specific nature of each type of proceedings and the complexity of the cases;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Reiterates that, in order to improve case and budgetary management, the CJEU should seriously consider: measuring performance on a case-by-case basis by reference to a tailored time- frame, taking account of the actual resources employed, continuing the improvements made in terms of reporting on performance by moving toward the development of a system of reporting on the specific numbers of cases meeting expected time-frames rather than average length of types of cases, implementing a policy allowing for a more flexible allocation of existing référendaires to help mitigate problems arising from factors related to the management of resources or organizational issues, further raising the awareness of the Member States and the Council of the importance of the timely nomination and appointment of Judges, completing the cost-benefit analysis of the impact (organisational, budgetary and in terms of case duration) of a change of the current practice in the General Court to use languages other than French for deliberation, implementing a fully integrated IT system to support case management;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 c (new)
Paragraph 7 c (new)
7c. Welcomes the suggestion, in the context of discussions on the IT resources available to the Courts in the short and medium terms, that it study, or even implement, an integrated IT system which has regard for the particular nature of judicial work and the specific characteristics of each Court;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Concludes that the CJEU could further enhance these positive results by considering a move towards more active individual case management, using tailored time-frames and monitoring the actual use of the human resources employed; Stresses that measuring performance on this basis, instead of using indicative time-frames to be respected on average, would inform management of both problem cases and elements of good practice; underlines that this information could also be used to improve reporting on performance to enhance accountability, providing insight on the proper functioning of the CJEU and on the use of its resources available;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Expresses concern that yet, in contrast to related concepts such as legitimacy, responsiveness, or transparency, accountability has – so far – been of little relevance in framing the Court’s authority;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9b. Notes that cases of corruption, improper behaviour, alcohol excesses, or refusal to work by members of the Court, which would prompt cries for judicial accountability, have been largely absent from its history; stresses that the rules on deprivation of office of a judge or Advocate General have never been applied in practice;