Strasbourg, 12 February 2001
CCJE (2001) 12
Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE)
Questionnaire on the independence of judges, their appointment and careers, and funding of the courts: reply submitted by Poland
I. THE INDEPENDENCE OF JUDGES
Ad 1-2) In Poland administration of justice leads: Supreme Court, common courts, administrative courts and military courts. That statement introduces principle, that only court performs administration of justice (tribunals being the judicial organs are excluded from that activity). Taking these provisions into consideration in first section of this elaboration I analysed constitutional provisions related to special status of all polish judges. In following section concerning detailed regulation of judge’s status and court’s position I focused on questions connected with status of common judges and position of the common courts. The common court judges determine fundamental part of all polish judges (about 8000 judges) and common courts create the cardinal part of the structure of Polish administration of justice. In this context I have to stress that number of detailed solutions regarded to the common courts were incorporated to Statute of August 21, 1997 on The Constitution of the Military Courts (Journal of Laws/1997, No. 117, item 753). Specific regulations concern military service was only preserved. Some detailed solutions (for example solutions regarded to the stability of judge status) were comprised in the statutes of the structure of the head of judicial organs (The Supreme Court, The Chief Administrative Court). Returning to our fundamental subject, I would like to indicate that Polish constitution guarantees special legal status of judge, through:
A) Guaranty the independence of judge which means, that in the scope of jurisdiction competency judge cannot be subordinated any administrative organ’s influence. According to Polish Constitution (art.178 item 1) judges, within the exercise of their office, shall be independent and subject only to the Constitution and statutes. The judge’s right to perform judicial authority has the special constitutional protection. The principle of the independence of the judge was confirmed in article 48 Statute on the Constitution on Common Courts of Law (Journal of Laws 1994, No.7 item 25) which purports that “ judges in performance of their office are independent and are subordinated to the statutes only.
B) Guaranty of special official status, by:
a) Special way of appointment for judge’s office by the President of the Republic of Poland on exclusive motion of the National Council of the Judiciary and for an indefinite period. Pursuant to art.179 of Polish Constitution “judges shall be appointed for an indefinite period by the President of the republic on the motion of the National Council of the Judiciary.
b) The principle of irremovability from the judge’s office. Art.180 of Polish Constitution institutes that, “judges shall not be removable. Recall of a judge from office, suspension from office, removal to another bench or position against his will may only occur by virtue of a court judgement and only in those instances prescribed in statute.
c) Interdiction to bring judge to criminal justice or deprive his liberty (judge’s immunity) without prior consent of court defined in statute. With regard to art.181 of Polish Constitution “ judge shall not, without prior consent granted by a court specified by statute, be held criminally responsibility nor deprived of liberty. A judge shall be neither detained nor arrested, except for cases when he has been apprehended in the commission of an offence and in which his detention is necessary for securing the proper course of proceedings. The president of the competent local court shall be forthwith notified of any such detention and may order an immediate release of person detained.
d) Providing remuneration adequate to the dignity of the judge’s profession. According to art.178 item 2 Polish Constitution “ judges shall be provided with appropriate conditions for work and granted remuneration consistent with the dignity of their office and scope of their duties. That guaranty considerably exceeds the scope of fundamental citizen rights as a consequence of exercising by judge potestas iurisdictionis. It’s marked the necessity to create the judge’s remuneration independent from political disposition and executive's’ decisions.
e) Judge’s transposition into the state of retirement it means in our constitution of common courts that judge still keeps the official relation but does not hold an office. Within the limits of this guaranty Polish Constitution determines in art.180 items 3-5 that “ judge may be retired as result of illness or infirmity which prevents him discharging the duties of his office. The procedure for doing so, as well as for appealing against such decision shall be specified by statute. A statute shall establish an age limit beyond which a judge shall proceed to the state of retirement. Where there has been a reorganisation of the court system or changes to the boundaries of court districts, a judge may be allocated to another court or transposed to the state of retirement with maintenance of his full remuneration.
f) The limitation of the judge in exercising some fundamental rights and liberties. Art.178 item 3 of Polish Constitution said “judge shall not belong to a political party, a trade union or perform public activities incompatible with the principles of independence” of the courts and judges1.
Ad 3) As it was said in point B letter b Polish Constitution proclaims the principles of judge’s irremovability. Article 58 of Statute on the Constitution of Common Courts of Law repeats this principle and successive articles starting from art.59 establish the catalogue of cases which cause the possibility to discharge judge from his office. I considered this question in next section of elaboration.
Ad 4) the distinction of judicial authority and its constitutional protection does not mean lack of any supervision. That supervision may descend only from inside of judicial authority. The binding principle of instances in jurisdiction means that courts of higher instance are authorised to judicial review (change or cassation) of the judgements of courts of lower instance2. So as it’s seen the decision made by judges (verdict or decree) can be only reviewed by courts of appeal or cassation. It is important that some dispositions made by judges may be cancelled by the Minister of Justice and the president of courts but that question concerns only administrative disposition not judicial authority understanding as passing judgements in behalf of state.
Ad 5) The judge or judges are appointed as a rule to hear the case and pass the judgement. However Polish procedural law does not prohibit changes in court composition especially on the post of judge president of the composition of the court, but these changes have to be restricted. It means that in some circumstances the case can be withdrawn from a judge. Both polish civil law proceeding and penal proceeding provide defined events of judge exception from hearing the case. The judge is excepted from hearing the case and the case is withdrawn from him by virtue of the law in the event of iudex inhabilis. In this event statutes strictly specified the reasons of exception and assented that the judge under any circumstances can hear the case. The judge files the statement to the dossier. That excepts him from hearing the case. If the judge didn’t file the statement but party had lodged motion of exception the court decides about this motion. The event of iudex suspectus related to the situations when statutes obligate to investigate whether in concrete case the judge shouldn’t hear the case. It takes place on judge’s demand or parties’ motion. The court entitled to hear case decides of exception of the judge. It’s necessary to stress in this context that polish civil and penal proceeding law create in various way the principles of settlement of court composition. According to art.351 of polish penal proceeding code there are two methods of judge appointment. The first is chronological method based on criterion cases taken to the court and handed over successively to the judge from panel of judges made in court in question. The second is by lot method taking place only on motion and in the events of crime subjected to life imprisonment or 25 years imprisonment. The judge’s omission (from the panel of judges) to hear the case takes place only in case of judge illness or important reason (for example long-lasting official journey, by lot appointment). In these events the president of the court or the chairman of department changes the judge and appoints next judge from the panel to hear the case. In civil proceeding according to Regulation of Internal Administration of Common Courts of Law (§,§64,65) the chairmen of department appoints the president of court complies with the principle that change of court composition within hearing the case take place only exceptionally. In the event of judge absence in session the chairmen of department cancels the hearing or order another judge to hear the case taking sense of purpose into consideration.
II. THE APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES AND THEIR CAREERS
Ad 1,2,4,) Requirements regarding judges for Polish courts are specified in Statute on the Constitution of Common Courts of Law, starting from art.51§1.
For the judge’s office can be appointed a candidate who:
1) Has Polish citizenship and full possession of his civil and citizen rights,
2) Is of high moral character,
3) Has completed a degree in law,
4) Has undergone a court or prosecution apprenticeship (recruitment for court apprenticeship is carried out on the ground of a competitive exam and lasts two years and six months. Apprentices during apprenticeship perform theoretical and practical training within the limits of all kind of cases hears in Polish courts. Apprenticeship ending with exam for judge).
5) Has passed judge or prosecutor exam,
6) Has worked as an court assessor or prosecutor assessor for two years,
7) Is over the age of 26.
Article 51§2 of above mentioned Statute expressed that for the post of a judge of the court of appeal can be appointed a person who apart from the requirements mentioned in art.51§1 have worked at least 5 years as a judge. For the post of judge can also be appointed a professor or an associate professor of legal sciences in a Polish university or the Polish Academy of Science or in the scientific and research institute or other scientific units. Those persons can work part-time.
Article 52 purports that the requirements specified in art. 51§1 points 4-6 and in §2 , do not apply to:
a) professors or associate professor of legal sciences in Polish universities or the Polish Academy of Science or in the scientific and research institutes or other scientific units,
b) prosecutors ordinary and military units,fficers in the army, who in military courts or military units of prosecutor’s office have worked as judges, prosecutors,
c) arbiters of (former) State Trade Arbitration ,
d) advocates and counsels, who have worked in this professions at least for 3 years,
Those persons mentioned in § 1 with exception of persons specified in point “a” can be appointed for the post of judge of appeal court if they have at least 5 years occupied posts or worked in the above mentioned provisions. Person descends outside the circle of judges (according to art.51-52 the Statute on the Constitution of Common Courts of Law) offer president of court himself as a candidate for judge according to the information concerning free posts in court spread to juridical institutions and faculties of law in universities. So as you can see judges in Poland are recruited on the basis of a professional examination and on the basis of their qualifications.
Ad 3) the candidate for judge’s office has to graduate from legal studies. Candidates’ scientific exercise expressed in university degree is an important element of professional activity estimated within the appointment procedure.
Ad 5) there is one age requirement to take judge’s office. The candidate has to be over 26 years. There is another age requirement for candidates applying for judge office in The Supreme Court and The Chief Administrative Court but this elaboration focused only on the common courts.
Ad 6-8) The President of the Republic of Poland appoints judges on exclusive motion of The National Council of the Judiciary.
Ad 9) the responsibility for recruitment of judges of common courts bears:
a) Court organs (president of the court, governing body of district or appeal court) expressed opinions about candidates for judges,
b) General assemblies of judges of districts or appeal courts elect candidates and submit them through the mediation of Minister of Justice who may expressed his opinions about candidates to the National Council of the Judiciary. The Minister of Justice can recommend individually the candidates for office of judges of common courts. He submits the motion to the National Council of Judiciary after receiving an opinion from governing body of court in question. So Minister of Justice is also responsible for recruitment of judges.
c) The National Council of the Judiciary performs positive qualification of candidates and submitted suitable motions for appointment to the President,
d) The President appoints candidates for judge office.
Ad 10) The National Council of the Judiciary as an authority independent of the government and the administration takes part in the selection and promotion of judges. The National Council of the Judiciary is a statutory body. It is based in Warsaw, and has the express remit of guarding the independence of the judges and the autonomy of the courts. The council has 15 judicial members and six parliamentary members in addition to the first President of the Supreme Court, the Minister of Justice, the President of the chief Administrative Court and a representative appointed by the President (nowadays the judge). Every members of Council has one voice. The main scope of activity of the Council is the following:
a) Reviewing candidates nominated for position as judges of the Supreme Court, the Chief Administrative Court, common courts and military courts,
b) Submitting motions for their appointment to the President of the Republic of Poland,
c) Expressing consent to the retention of judge office by judges who exceed 65 years of age,
d) Reviewing drafts of normative acts to the judiciary,
e) Determining the total number of members of the Disciplinary Court and High Disciplinary Court,
f) Expressing its opinion in relation to: the professional ethics of judges, matters involving judges and courts which are brought before it by the President of the Republic or other State authorities or by general assemblies of judges. Constitutional positions of the National Council of the Judiciary and wide range of his activities focusing on judiciary qualified me to concern the Council as an organ of judicial higher degree authority3.
Ad 11, 12) Judges are promoted on the basis of their qualifications, integrity, ability and efficiency. President of adequate court prepares opinion about candidate applying for judge’s position in court of higher rank. All candidates for judge posts in court of higher rank are reviewed by the governing body of district or appeal court (art. 41§1 point 2 and art. 411§2 point 2 the Statute on the Constitution of Common Courts of Law). Next they are submitted to the general assemblies of judges of district or courts of appeal. Delegates from regional courts became members of general assemblies of judges of district courts. General assemblies discuss particular candidates. They take the opinion prepared by judge-visitor acting on behalf of president of court (pursuant to §9 point 2 Ordinance of the Minister of Justice of September 18, 1995 on procedures for supervising the administrative operations of courts of law Journal of Laws of September 28, 1995) into consideration. They appraise candidate’s professional achievement on the ground of judge-visitor opinion (the detailed attention is paid to jurisdiction activity) and submitted the National Council of Judiciary by the medium of the Minister of Justice who may expressed his opinions about every candidate. The Minister of Justice is authorised to recommend to the National Council of Judiciary the judge-candidate for higher court outside the general assembly of judges of adequate court. The opinion of the governing body of court in question is required (art. 412 § 2 the Statute on the Constitution of Common Courts of Law). The judge-visitor also estimates the professional court achievement of candidate presented by the Minister of Justice. In order to make all the opinions prepared by judges-visitors clear and objective, the Council together with presidents of all courts of appeal settle the principle that candidate’s jurisdiction is estimated by judge-visitor from different courts district than a candidate comes from (cross visitation). The number of candidates submitted to the National Council of Judiciary for consideration should been equal to twice the number of vacancies need to be filled. These requirements are not obligated in the case of candidates applying for judge’s post in the regional courts or in the case of lack of a suitable candidate. The Council considers all circumstances connected with candidate’s professional activity, taking in particular their efficiency of work, period of practice (see art. 51§2 statute of common courts) stability of jurisdiction, punctuality of preparing motives of judgements and personal files into consideration. It’s admissible to add professional opinions and lists of recommendation. The system of candidates’ appointment is based on positive criterion. It’s admissible to add professional opinions and lists of recommendation. In order to solve any doubts expressed by members of the Council against candidate the Council may ask for interview president of adequate court or judge-visitor together with candidate to explain doubts. The Council after consideration of all candidates puts each of them to vote in absolute majority and after that submits motions for appointment to the President. The criteria of judge promotion are specified in statutes: the Constitution of Common Courts of Laws and the National Council of the Judiciary. As well as the Ordinance of supervising the administrative court operations and Regulation of the National Council of the Judiciary and adjustments fixed by the National Council of the Judiciary with organs of common courts, contain the principles of judge promotion.
Ad.13) In the light of provisions of the Statute on the Constitution of Common Courts of Law a judge can be removed from his office in the following situations:
1) The official authority of the judge is dissolved if he renounces his office. The renouncement is valid after one month from delivery of the deliverance to the Minister of Justice, unless on the initiative of the judge another date is stated (art.59§1 Statute on Common Courts of Laws),
2) The official authority of judge is dissolved from the moment the decision of disciplinary court concerning the discharge of the judge from office or the verdict of the court sentenced the penalty of deprivation of public (political) rights or penalty of prohibition of an occupation as a judge are legally valid, (art.60§1 Statute of Common Courts of Laws ),
3) The judge is going into the state of retirement if:
a) Because of illness or infirmity he was diagnosed by doctor in question as permanently unfit to fulfil his duties,
b) He came up to certain age (65 years of age or with agreement of the National Council of the Judiciary till 70 years of age). From the decision of the doctor the judge can apply to the labour and social insurance court (art.59§3 the Statute of Common Courts of Laws ),
4) The judge on his own motion is transposed into the state of retirement after achievement of certain age (55 years of age by a woman and 60 years of age by a male) if they occupied judge office for certain period ( woman for 25 years and male for 30 years ) (art.59§4 the Statute of Common Courts of Laws ),
5) The judge can be transposed into the state of retirement by the National Council of the Judiciary on the initiative of the governing body of the court in question if because of illness and leave with pay for recuperation he does not fulfil his office over one year. Against decision of the Council the judge can apply to the administrative court (art.59§5 the Statute of Common Courts of Law),
6) The judge can also be transposed to the state of retirement (by way described in §4) in case of change of constitution of courts or in change of borders of court’s jurisdiction territories. The judge transferred to another court is not entitled to the right mentioned above (art.59§6 the Statute on the Constitution of Common Courts of Law).
The further possibility of removing judge from his office is specified in the Act of December 3, 1998 on the Disciplinary Responsibility of Judges Compromised Judiciary Independence in the Year 1944-1989. The Act concerns judges who compromised their judiciary independence in handing down verdicts between 1944-1989 in cases constituting a form of repression against persons engaged in activities towards the independence of Poland, political activities, activities in defence of human rights or for the preservation of fundamental human rights. Those judges shall not be subject to regulations cancel prescription of disciplinary misdemeanours. The disciplinary court may sentence them convicted of the act mentioned above to discharge from judiciary.
In this question I have to mention that above specified act caused many controversies on account of annulment prescription of disciplinary misdemeanours. But the Constitutional Tribunal has accepted that regulation. The Tribunal has stressed that transition from totalitarian to democratic social policy might exceptionally assume the forms that in ordinary conditions wouldn’t have justification. Disciplinary proceedings in cases specified above initiated prior to December 31, 2002 shall proceed until a legally binding and valid result is achieved. So at present it’s admissible to bring disciplinary against judges described in above Act what was not possible in the past. In that context it’s necessary to mention about the statute quarantines of judge independence-the principle of inadmissibility of change judge position.
The Constitution of Polish common courts determines precisely situation when the judge can change his position as well.
According to article 61§1 the Statute on the Constitution of Common Courts – appointment of the judge for another post or transfer to another official post can be accomplished only with his approval. Approval is not required (art.61§2 above specified Statute):
1) In the case the post dissolves to be caused by change in organisation in the judiciary,
2) In the case of marriage between judges,
3) When considering the authority of the judge’s office is required. That transfer takes place pursuant to resolution of the National Council of the Judiciary. It’s needed to stress that some find case specified in point 3 as an superfluous provision due to the possibility to transfer the judge in disciplinary way and the convergence notion “transgression of the office dignity” prerequisite of disciplinary responsibility4.
4) In the case of disciplinary transfer.
Those provisions are supplemented by interdiction of the judge delegation without his permission (art. 63§1 above-mentioned statute on common courts). I can’t pass over that in cases specified in point 2-3 the judge is entitled to bring action to the administrative court.
Ad 14) Comment concerns difficulties with regard to the independence.
Polish Constitution provides the principle of balance and division between particular authorities (art.10). The separateness and independence of judicial authority was univocally defined in art. 178 item 2 of Polish constitution. It also stipulates that judges should be provided with working conditions commensurate with the dignity of their office and the extent of their duties. In this context it’s necessary to stress that only with reference to judges was formulated the guarantee rule in the domain of judges remuneration. This constitutional rule is the guaranty of judge independence. The judge’s remuneration constitutes in practice the one resource of his incomes. On the contrary to other profession, judges do not receive bonus and reward and can not undertake additional job (with exception of scientific activity). In that situation only independent system of judges remuneration based on objective criteria would fulfil the constitutional principle specified in art.178 item 2. That system defined by objective indexes would eliminate the possibility to treat the judge’s remuneration as element of pressure exerted by legislative and executive powers on judicial authority. Unfortunately, the present polish system of judge remuneration does not comply with objective criteria. The basic remuneration of judges of equivalent courts is equal and fixed according to the dignity of position of judges and has to be the multiplicity of the basic amount that is specified in separate provisions proclaimed by the budgetary statute. The amount remuneration of judges is differed pursuant to time of practice and functions. So on the amount of judges remuneration first of all have influence the settlement of basic amount what depends on government. The National Council of the Judiciary discerns in the system of settlement the base of judge remuneration transgression of constitutional principles of balance between judicial authority and legislative and executive.
I would like also to stress that I accord with an opinion that Polish judges do not fully engage themselves in social debate with society regarding the external aspects of judiciary activity. Meanwhile the return of judicial authority to the circle of trio authorities bears on its shoulders the duty to be the participant in this debate. It is a necessary consequence of being the authority. The judicial authority is obliged to accept the requirements of judicial authorisation through persuasion and transparency as well. It indicates the new model of justification of verdicts easy to understand and clear for society5. It is a challenge for Polish judges for new millennium that can not be identified with transgression of judge independence.
III. THE FUNDING OF THE COURT
Ad 1-3) Nowadays the judiciary (except the Supreme Court and the Chief Administrative Court) has no influence over the final shape of part of state budget from which it’s financed. The Minister of Justice prepares the project of the part of state budget for the judiciary and submits to the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Finance approves this project. Next the Government resolves the draft budget and submits to the Parliament for scrutiny and approval by committees of the Sejm (the House of Parliament). After enacting the statute of state budget the Minister of Justice submits to the Ministry of Finance detailed plan of expenses and incomes of the part of the state budget concerns to the judiciary. In the same time the Minister of Justice informs the common courts (appeal and district) about final amounts of expenses taking into account personal, material and investment expenditures and incomes. After that the courts make financial plan. The president of district court fixed the financial plan for regional court. Every court in accordance with the provisions of the statute “budget law” finances its expenses from financial measures allocated pursuant to the fixed financial plan whilst incomes are paid directly to the state budget.
Ad 4-6) According to art.122 Statute of common courts in regional courts may be employed court referendaries to perform definite procedural activities belonging to the court in the scope of proceeding in the cases connected with the leading real-estate register and courts registers. Thus in system of Polish law referendary was placed as higher court officer. Nowadays in regional court are employed 305 referendaries. The increase of the interest of referendary profession has been watched from 1998. Taking that increase of interest into consideration the Ministry of Justice estimates the number of referendaries need to be employed on the level not less than 800 persons. Unfortunately at present by the reason of lack of suitable financial resources the number of referendaries appointed in courts, after all is not sufficient. In courts are employed court secretaries, but they performing bureau-activity and certain administrative activity under judge’s supervision. The Statute of the Constitution of Common Courts of Law does not predicted judge’s assistant who would self-reliantly perform administrative activities and activities in preparatory proceedings to the trial. Nowadays assistant can be appointed only in The Supreme Court and in The Chief Administrative Court. The right of appointment common court assistants is predicted in the Bill of Statute on the Constitution of Common Courts of Law. So I can say that nowadays Polish judges exercise duties in common courts have no adequate support staff to reduce their duties not connected with adjudication. In this context we can pass over that nowadays in the real-estate register departments and register departments in common courts are employed about 1400 judges who in the event of increase of the number of referendaries would act efficiently in others department of the court. That change would not cause the negative consequences for parties due to the fact, that according to the civil proceeding a party is authorised to complain against referendary’s decision. What’s more polish judges have no adequate informative technology particularly office automation, proper data processing facilities. It’s necessary to stress that the shortage of computer system and proper processing data links in direct connection with undue delay in judiciary. We can’t forget that owing to the Minister’s of Justice stand-point within the period of the last 3 years it was noted considerable increase of the number of computer in courts but unfortunately the number is still insufficient. The general computerisation of common courts is the most urgent task in investment domain. The computerisation would facilitate not only the keeping of court records but also rapid access to information in court files, information relating to court precedents and professional literature. The immediate improvement of court’s work depends on implementation in courtrooms IT system that has just been starting. I would also pay attention to the bad local conditions of huge number of regional common courts. I can pass over the local shortage, the lack of comfortable furniture, lack of sufficient number of court rooms, lack of special rooms for witnesses separated from public in common courts. I also have to notice the limited access to court dossiers particularly in the real-estate register departments due to the lack of proper conditions to read them, the lack of proper facilities that would allow disable persons to approach the courts. Those settlements are contained in the Helsinki Foundation’s of Human Rights report and in the report prepared on the initiative of the Polish Judges Association by American Bar Association Central and East European Law Initiative. It’s necessary to stress that all problems connected with the functioning of judiciary have to be considered on the background of huge enlargement of courts’ jurisdiction. It determines the proper scale of our judiciary’s problems.
Ad 7) General comments
The solution of all those problems mentioned above is situated in the sphere of proper financial safeguarding of the judiciary. Expenses assigned for judiciary in the state budget will reach in year 2001 the level of 2,7 percent. It indicates the increase of budgetary expenses send to the judiciary compared with former years. But according to the National Council’s of Judiciary opinion to provide proper functioning of judiciary these expenses should be settled on the level not less than 3,5 percent in state budget and increase to catch in year 2002 the level of 4 percent. In anticipation of achievement expected index it’s necessary to establish additional financial resources beyond budgetary means (for example special fund formed from certain part of notaries’ incomes assign for improvement of technical infrastructure of real-estate departments). To make the necessary progress the judicial authority has to be estimated by Parliament and the Minister of Finance in different way compared with others budgetary spheres due to the fact that incomes of judiciary have been balanced with their expenses from many years. These circumstances justify the postulate of the autonomy of the judiciary budget and postulate to separate it from others provinces governed by the Minister of Justice like: penology, reformatories, diagnostic centres, and so on. The acceptation of these postulates would create the real exemplification of constitutional guaranty of the separateness and independence of judicial authority. All those postulates raised by circle of judges, the National Council of the Judiciary and Polish Judges Association have been still current as far as the National Council of the Judiciary gets the right of creation and performance the budget of judiciary without executive’s influence. The group of the deputies has been lately shared postulate mentioned above in their Bill of the Statute of the National Council of the Judiciary. It’s needed to point out in this context that some institutions of judicial authority like: The Supreme Court, The Chief Administrative Court have budgetary autonomy. It should strengthen the postulate came from judges’ environment for budgetary separateness of the judiciary. The principles of budgetary creation existed in judicial institutions mentioned above was taken over in adequate way to the Bill of the Statute of National Council of the Judiciary. This Bill presumes that the National Council of the Judiciary would resolve the annual project of incomes and expenses of common courts which the Minister of Finance would have emerged this project to the state budget without any amendments. It’s predicted that the Minister of Justice would influence of the budgetary performing. These proposals are reasonable and compromising taking today’s mutual diffusion between all authorities into consideration. It’s necessary to stress that there is a government Bill of Statute on the Constitution of Common Courts of Law. The Bill presumes creation the budgetary autonomy of common courts. According to this Bill the National Council of the Judiciary on the bases of the projects prepared by all courts, would submit motion to the Ministry of Justice to create the project of annual incomes and expenses of all common courts. That project the Minister of Justice would send to the Ministry of Finance to include it in the project of state budget. In my opinion it would be a considerable step forward in comparison with current situation in the scope of proper financial safeguarding of functioning of common courts. Unfortunately I have to point out that according to the government Bill, the common courts would be dependent on executive as formerly.