Home Year 2024 Salient legal topics

Cultured feedback and feedback culture

Ave Hussar
Head of the Supreme Court personnel and communication department

Scenes from the life of a judiciary

Tallinn, 11 February 2010. IX Ordinary Plenary Session of Judges “Evaluating the work of a judge – should we fear feedback?”[1]. The plenary session’s topic was inspired by the discussions held in the Training Council[2]. Namely, it was questioned whether the current system, where the judge alone decides their own training needs, can meet the training objectives. The lack of a system that identifies personal training needs has caused the Training Council to repeatedly discuss how to train judges who keep making the same mistakes in their work, and how to ensure the training is effective. The purpose of the evaluation would not be to infringe on the independence of judges or to impose possible sanctions, but to provide feedback to judges, identify best work practices, and, if necessary, draw attention to weaknesses.

Tartu District Court Judge Rutt Teeveer[3] addresses the plenary session with a strong message. In her opinion, even if judges who are dishonest in their work or simply do a poor job are just a few bad apples, we should not “silently accept this situation and hide like a hedgehog behind the spines of independence.” The speaker links the topic, among other things, to the responsibility of a judge, whereby the latter is not limited to ensuring that the administered justice is in accordance with the constitution and laws, but is significantly broader, encompassing all their work (and not only the part that reaches a higher court when the right of appeal is exercised). To remind the judge of this responsibility, someone should have the right to draw the judge’s attention to their shortcomings, including in the content and form of their rulings, in their communication with participants to the proceedings, or in other aspects of their work. In conclusion to a substantial deliberation, she finds that a judge should not be afraid of having their work evaluated if the evaluation is based on fair grounds and if the purpose of the evaluation is to draw the judge’s attention to shortcomings and problems in their work in a benevolent manner.

Mare Pork, Professor at Tallinn University, explains that a person’s competencies can be evaluated relatively objectively. “Every profession has its critical situations that allow for the best demonstration of competencies,” said Pork. “It is possible to evaluate people’s qualifications by assessing the complexity of what they can handle.” The professor thinks it’s important that the competencies to be assessed – a behavioural description of the skills necessary to perform the key activities of the position – should be agreed upon and the primary person to evaluate them should be the person to be evaluated themselves. The evaluation criteria must be agreed upon and understandable to both the evaluator and the person to be evaluated. Judge Priit Pikamäe summarises[4]: “[M. Pork] made an especially important point that the objective of evaluation must be development and above all, the person themselves must want to develop, otherwise nothing will come of it – all evaluation must begin with self-evaluation.”

This plenary session makes a decision to develop an evaluation methodology. It is found that a fair evaluation of the work of a judge by colleagues, based on the judge’s independence, is primarily helpful in nature, aimed at advancing the judicial system and ensuring the development of a properly functioning administration of justice; the purpose of evaluating the work of a judge is to increase the judge’s professional competence. It is recognised that in order to improve the functioning of the judicial training system and to foster the comprehensive professional development and continuous self-improvement of judges, it is necessary to identify the judges’ personal training needs.

Pärnu, 11 February 2011. X Ordinary Plenary Session of Judges “Providing feedback on the work of a judge“.[5] A working group consisting of ten judges and three officials who have been working on the topic presented the results of their work to the plenary for discussion. The working group had come to the conclusion that a performance review is the most effective way to evaluate the work of judges and receive feedback. The purpose of the performance review is to provide judges with constructive feedback on their professional achievements and to identify their development and training needs.

There is no consensus in this discussion.[6] There is a notable question of “whether […] we should break down the conservative model that has existed until now, or should we really be moving towards managerialism in the administration of justice. […] Do the chief judge of the court and the judge have to talk? Talking is a must and people always have to be heard. A judge has only one right in the organisational structure – to be heard.” [7]

As a result of the vote, the word “regularly” is replaced by the words “as needed”. “The chief judge of the court notifies the judges with whom they will organise performance reviews in the following year by 1 July of the current year”, is replaced by the text saying that the judges shall make a request for a performance review and the chief judge of the court only has the right to make a proposal for it.

It was approved by the plenary session’s decision [8] that one of the methods for evaluating the work of judges and identifying their training needs is a performance review conducted by the chief judge of the court as needed, and recommends that when providing feedback to judges on their work, the chief judge of the court should use the document “Methodology and criteria for providing feedback to judges”, adopted by the same plenary session as a supporting material for this.

During the years 2013–2015, the Estonian Quality Management Rules of Courts are prepared and approved by the plenary assemblies. It consists of three independent parts: 1) good practices in court management; 2) good practices in court administration; 3) good practices in court procedure. According to good practices in court management, the chief judge of the court conducts an interview with a judge whose activities during the monitored period have received more complaints than average or complaints that deserve greater attention, or who has had more court decisions cancelled than average during the monitored period (section 1.2) – thus, the interview is intended only to provide negative feedback. In section 2.1 of the same document, a reference to the 2011 methodological guide can be found: “The chief judge of the court conducts performance reviews with judges as needed based on the methodological guidelines ‘Methodology and criteria for providing feedback to judges’, adopted by the general assembly of judges in 2011 and, if possible, takes the results of the interview into consideration in the management of the court.”

Yearbook of Estonian Courts 2018. Chief judges of courts Astrid Asi, Villem Lapimaa and Kristjan Siigur write about the judiciary exercising oversight over themselves.[9]To begin with, reference is made to several previous approaches to service oversight[10]. V. Lapimaa is of the opinion that oversight within the judiciary, which is clearly apolitical, is one way of helping to ensure the independence of the administration of justice. A. Asi stresses that feedback, especially feedback from a court of higher instance, plays an important role in the development of a judge as a professional, and urges to have a serious discussion about the organisation of feedback between instances of courts. K. Siigur states that “both disciplinary proceedings and the oversight actions of the chief judge of the court as provided for in subsection 45(11) of the Courts Act (CA) require the specifically defined and correspondingly weighted breach or shortcomings to be identified. However, there is no proper feedback system to respond to shortcomings that characterise judges’ professional activities and their results, which, when viewed individually, do not provide grounds for initiating disciplinary proceedings or in themselves cause the adjudication of the case to be delayed beyond a reasonable period of time, but which, when viewed as a whole, justifiably give rise to complaints and recognition that the quality of work is not quite what it should be.“

On 1 May 2023, the Act on Amendments to the Courts Act and Related Amendments to Other Acts enters into force, on the basis of which departments are established in courts.[11] The topic of giving feedback to judges is left out of the bill (633 SE)[12] at the last minute.[13] The bill provided for giving feedback to judges in such a way that the chairman of the relevant chamber of the circuit court would be authorised to give feedback to a first instance judge on their work.

In November 2023, legislative intent to draft the Act on Amendments to the Courts Act [14] states that the methodology approved by the 2011 plenary session has not been put into use for more than ten years and there have been no interviews conducted with judges based on this,[15] which is why the Council for Administration of Courts and chief judges have considered it necessary to develop relevant regulations to enhance supervision within the judicial system. In the future, the feedback system for judges could include receiving feedback from a court of a higher instance and performance reviews conducted in the home court. After the creation of departments in courts, courts have more capacity to conduct performance reviews and the burden can be shared between the heads of departments, chief judges and chairs of chambers. The corresponding bill has not yet been processed.

In response to the then-legislative intent to draft the Act (LIDA), a few observations are in order here. The LIDA in question referred to the possibility of also providing positive feedback, but it is likely that, in practice, there would only be capacity for negative examples. This would have resulted in irregular semi-formal and selective feedback, which would be an inappropriate form of feedback. Feedback was intended to be given to both the first and second instance judges. Would peer review-type feedback be sufficient for judges who decide matters in a collegial manner? Perhaps it would be more helpful if a supervisor were also assigned to a judge starting at the second instance and if the supervision period, depending on the judge’s previous experience, were longer than one year, if necessary (same in the first instance). While the general objective of the planned feedback is to “improve the quality of the proceedings and support the judge in their work; promote the growth of professionalism within the judiciary and identify best practices,” there are other, less contentious ways to do this, primarily through substantive and systematic development activities. According to the LIDA, “the current regulation […] doesn’t allow for responding to shortcomings in the substantive quality of a judge’s performance”. But don’t the shortcomings that lie outside the substance of the administration of justice mostly reveal themselves to the chief judge/head of department of the court, not to the higher instance judge? Could the chief judge or a head of department here have the status of primus inter pares and lead quality work in the broadest sense – like in the Netherlands?

Meanwhile in the Netherlands

The Supreme Court of the Netherlands[16] rarely imposes disciplinary sanctions[17]; for example, none were imposed in 2024.[18] The judicial system there does not have a formal evaluation system, which would directly lead to negative consequences for the judge. How do they do it?

The selection process for judges involves a comprehensive series of tests and interviews, during which only personal characteristics and intellectual ability are evaluated. A prerequisite for applying for the position of a judge is at least two years of legal work experience outside the judicial system. A successful candidate is confirmed as a trainee judge and undergoes at least a one-year (usually four-year) individual training programme in court that takes their previous experience and skills into consideration, while they can also adjudicate on simpler court matters. After completing the training programme, the judge is confirmed again, this time for life.

The court board[19] is responsible for the quality of administration of justice and the uniform application of the law, and the Council for the Judiciary (Raad voor de rechtspraak) coordinates quality work across the judicial system. The legal mechanisms for ensuring the quality of judges’ work include the usual complaint procedure, appeal and cassation procedure, the institution of removal of a judge, as well as the court proceedings, including hearings, being public.

Systematic quality management is based primarily on professional standards[20]. These are quality standards developed by the judges themselves. The standards are public; by publishing them, judges demonstrate the quality requirements for their work and work environment, and manifest a shared responsibility for the quality of the work of the courts.

Attention is also being paid to ensuring the uniformity of case law, and several innovation projects[21] are underway to better meet society’s expectations.

In the Netherlands, the evaluation of judges is a systematic and multi-level process that focuses on both professional and personal qualities to ensure the quality of the justice system and the professional development of judges. The evaluation is based on five position profiles[22], which are judge, senior judge, senior judge “A”, judge in the Court of Appeal and senior judge in the Court of Appeal.

The evaluation focuses on the following main performance areas:

court case proceedings and conducting hearings;
adjudicating and making decisions;
management skills and teamwork;
communication (including communication with the public);
law development and policy making;
peer review and self-development;
professional communication and ethical standards.

These performance areas form the basis for the evaluation and development of a judge and help ensure that judges perform their role with the highest quality and professionalism possible. Eleven competencies, or the knowledge, skills or attitudes required of a judge to achieve good work results, are also defined:

situational awareness;
analytical ability;
listening skills;
persuasion skills;
management skills;
cooperation skills;
confidence and authenticity;
flexibility;
self-awareness;
learning ability and self-reflection skills;
decisiveness.

The competency profile also serves as the basis for the selection and training of new judges.

Performance evaluation is a formal tool for judges to ensure the quality of the judges’ work and support their work performance, personal development and sustainable professional competitiveness. Performance evaluation is a dialogue between the judge and the head of the team[23]. The central tool for assessing the quality of the performance of individual judges is the annual interview[24].

To develop a uniform approach to performance evaluation, the Council for the Judiciary, in cooperation with the Dutch Association for the Judiciary, prepared guidelines for the performance evaluation of judges[25] in 2014. The most important parts of it can be summarised as follows:

Regularity. Each judge is evaluated at least once a year. The evaluation may also be initiated by the judge themself or by the court board.
Evaluators. The court board, excluding its non-judiciary members, has the right and obligation under the law to conduct performance evaluations. The court board may also delegate this task to the head of the team. If the head of the team is not a judge, the performance evaluation is conducted by the head of the other team, who is a judge, in the presence of the non-judiciary head of the unit.
Information gathering. The judge can name two colleagues who will be asked to provide information about the judge. The information providers may belong to different professional categories (court officials, administrative staff, etc.), but are preferably individuals who have worked with the judge within the last year. The head of the team may also designate information providers. The information providers are asked to point out both strengths and problematic areas, preferably illustrated with specific examples.
Evaluation focus. Respecting the independence of the judge, performance evaluations do not include the judge’s substantive or procedural decisions in a particular court case. The evaluation focuses on professional development and cooperation, as well as factors affecting work performance (including workload, work content, IT support, communication and the performance of the supervisor and the board of the court).
Report. The head of the team prepares a report on the performance evaluation, to which the judge may make suggestions for changes or additions. The report will be added to the judge’s personnel file.
Evaluation results. A negative evaluation, even if repeated, does not automatically lead to the dismissal of the judge or other (severe) disciplinary measures. The head of the team, in consultation with the judge, always aims for the judge to improve their performance. This may mean, for example, that the judge is referred for further training[26], receives guidance from a more experienced colleague, or is assigned to another court where their skills would be better applied.

An analysis conducted in 2020 showed that the guidelines are widely followed and support constructive dialogue between the judge and the head of the team. In conclusion of the analysis, it was recommended that the content of the evaluation should be adapted to the stage of the judge’s career to avoid repeating the same review year after year. The preparation for the evaluation should be diversified as well – different individuals should be used as information providers, the performance of the work should be demonstrated in various ways and the judges themselves should be involved more. In addition, it was emphasised that the quality of performance evaluation is a shared responsibility of the judge and the head of the team. Judges should be encouraged to play a more active role in the evaluation process, for example, by asking them to think about certain issues beforehand and gather information by themselves or analyse their work results in advance. These recommendations from the year 2020 have been implemented and are part of standard practices now.[27]

Quality assessment takes place in the form of peer review as well. These peer review sessions are supervised by a trained expert and are carried out four times a year in small groups of six to eight judges, under the auspices of the Judicial Training Centre (SSR). Peer review is a tool used to reflect on real-life situations. The SSR even has a peer review unit, consisting of external experts trained to provide feedback on the judges’ work. The latter represent various professions: journalists, filmmakers, psychologists and communication consultants, among others. They encourage judges to look in the mirror if they so wish.[28]

Additionally, judges must participate in a self-development activity once a year. The judge decides which specific activity is appropriate. The courts offer a variety of activities, including intervision, coaching, reading of court decisions and participation in court hearings.

To measure the quality of administration of justice, customer satisfaction surveys are conducted every four years. The survey aims to assess the opinions of both specialists (including lawyers, prosecutors, bailiffs and civil servants) and parties to the proceedings (citizens) on various aspects of the quality of services. The judge’s listening and communication skills, as well as the clarity of their decisions, are assessed among other things.

As additional measures of quality assessment, a staff satisfaction survey is conducted every two years, assessing management, teamwork and workload, and a quality audit is conducted every four years, where an independent commission (with members from both inside and outside the judiciary) assesses the quality of administration of justice and compliance with standards. The result of a quality audit also serves as a reporting instrument to society.

Disciplinary measures may be imposed either by the court presidents (who may apply more lenient measures) or by the Supreme Court. The Chief Prosecutor of the Supreme Court has general oversight authority over judges and they may propose to the Supreme Court to apply disciplinary measures (reprimand, transfer, withholding part of the salary or dismissal from the position). It is rare for the Supreme Court to apply disciplinary measures – even an informal discussion with the Chief Prosecutor of the Supreme Court can, due to the authority of their position, lead to the desired changes in the judge’s behaviour.[29]

The purpose of the evaluation system is to ensure consistent quality, promote the judges’ professional development and maintain public trust in the judicial system. The judicial system must be a learning organisation. When it comes to quality, a bottom-up approach is important, so that judges feel that they are the owners of the quality process.

In conclusion, work experience outside the judicial system as a prerequisite for becoming a judge, a strict selection process that values high intellectual ability, and on-site professional training that accommodates individual needs allow the Dutch judicial system to apply soft measures to evaluate the performance of individual judges and avoid punishment.

Back in Estonia

There are indications that progress is being made on the topics of judge feedback and performance reviews.[30] In 2023, the then chief judge of the Viru District Court, L. Naaber‑Kivisoo, sums it up as follows: “Just like everyone else, a judge, too, needs support. The performance review is the opportunity for them to talk to someone who supports them in their work environment. A performance review definitely helps prevent burnout and other problems. We have now tried out conducting performance reviews and while it is unfamiliar at first, the more we do these reviews, the easier it will become. Feedback is needed for the judges to receive direct and honest opinions on their work, as the chairmen cannot always do this.”[31]

In autumn 2024[32], a competency model for judges is approved in Tartu. The starting point in developing the model was that a judge, as an autonomous professional, understands the need for improvement without external coercion, and that developing competences increases a judge’s independence and autonomy. It is agreed that the competency model is the basis for finding out the need for training and other development activities and for providing feedback to starting judges.[33]

Generalising what is said in scientific literature, Mait Raava, a management consultant, notes the following in the materials of the ‘Competency model for judges’ workshop: “In the last decade, the most radical innovation in providing feedback was putting the focus on increasing employee autonomy. Thanks to extensive research on autonomy, it has become obvious that a person’s development is based on their inner free will, not external coercion, and that feedback that increases autonomy can successfully raise an employee’s desire to improve.”

A judge’s competencies can be improved to a large extent, but they also depend significantly on the judge’s mental abilities and personality traits that have already been developed in adulthood. Therefore, when recruiting and selecting judges, it is necessary to evaluate whether the candidates have sufficient prerequisite characteristics to improve their competencies and achieve good work results. In other words, it is the responsibility of the judicial system to ensure that only candidates with the suitable prerequisite characteristics for developing competencies and achieving good work results are selected as judges. If a candidate has the suitable prerequisite characteristics, but does not yet have all the necessary knowledge and skills, they must be helped to acquire them.

More than a quarter of the judges currently in office have started working within the last five years. The generational change of judges is therefore in full swing and supporting new judges is an important topic. “Recommendations for the Supervision of New Judges,” prepared in 2022, is the conceptual basis for the updated supervisor (mentor) report form. All chief judges were involved in devising the recommendations, and the working group was led by Harju District Court judge Monika Tähtväli. The mentor’s role was envisioned primarily to be an observer and guide, who would also draw attention to bottlenecks. The chief judge of a court was seen to be fulfilling the primary role in assessing the judge’s suitability. The new[34] report form for a judge supervising a judge, “Summary of the cooperation interview between the new judge and the mentor”, [35]supports the new judge better than before and the new judge has an active role in completing it (self-analysis section). The form can be used to express mutual expectations for mentoring. Once it’s been adapted to the competency model for judges, the summary of the collaborative conversation between the new judge and the mentor can hopefully be completed in the PlanPro survey environment in the future.

Naturally, more important than filling out the form are substantive mentoring, self-analysis and performance reviews, which the form must support. The mentoring relationship is based on trust and is generally confidential in nature. Therefore, it is worth considering whether the requirement set out in subsection 73(2) of the Courts Act, according to which a judge supervising a judge with less than three years’ length of service submits a report regarding the supervised judge to the chief judge of the court, assessing their suitability for the office of judge, once a quarter until the expiry of the term of supervision, continues to be necessary and appropriate. The duration of the mentoring relationship could vary from one to two years, depending on the new judge’s preparation and previous experience with court proceedings. The mentor’s role is all the more important as preparation of judges is practically non-existent: a judge must perform their duties from day one and (continue to) learn on the job. It is important that a new judge adopts the competency model for judges, practices self-reflection and is open to feedback from a colleague (initially a mentor).

In the first three years, the formal evaluation is carried out by the chief judge of a court. There is currently no uniform practice regarding whether feedback is collected from a wider circle (court of a higher instance, bar association, prosecutor’s office, other parties to the proceedings) when preparing the report of a new judge, and not all chief judges of courts discuss the report with the judge themself.[36] At the CAC session on 9 December 2022^[37], the then chief judge of the Harju District Court, Astrid Asi, noted the following in this regard: “We already provide feedback to junior judges and we have no obligation to do so today. When I give an opinion, I also ask the circuit court for their opinion, and so far they have not refused it. Additionally, we have an agreement with the circuit court that they will talk to people if necessary. It is possible to do it voluntarily. Some people don’t agree to it, but it wouldn’t be easy to talk to them even if they had an obligation.” It would be highly desirable to establish the practice of collecting additional feedback and talking to the judge based on the report. In a larger court, this task may be delegated to the head of the department. The form of the court chairman’s report could be updated so that collecting feedback from a wider audience and having a conversation with the judge would become a regular part of the report process.[38]

After three years, when a judge has legally taken office for life, regular performance reviews with the chief judge of a court or head of department should continue. To prepare for the interview, the judge fills out a self-evaluation questionnaire[39] based on the competency model, and quantitative and qualitative information is collected (completed training, procedural statistics, feedback from the higher court and parties to the proceedings). This would be technically feasible in the PlanPro[40] survey environment.

Objectives set

September 2024. The CAC approves the Court Development Plan 2024–2030[41]. Personnel policy has an objective to create a unified, competent and well-functioning team that is able to adapt to changes and ensure high-quality and efficient administration of justice. Achieving a strong organisational culture and sense of belonging is based on ethical and value-based management. To this end, a unified personnel policy is implemented that supports the employees’ professional development, fosters a feedback culture and promotes lifelong learning.

Regarding feedback, the following measures of the personnel policy (including the proposed implementation plan) are worth highlighting:

Special attention is paid to the introduction of regular cooperation interviews and one‑on‑one feedback sessions to support employee development and strengthen their psychological sense of security. Feedback is not limited to internal communication – input from customers and partners is also important, and is used to improve the quality of services.
At the same time, a systematic approach to valuing lifelong learning will be developed, a network of mentors and internal trainers and digital learning environments will be created and outstanding knowledge sharers will be recognised. Development is also linked to strategic priorities: targeted skills development is managed through training plans and performance reviews, complemented by knowledge exchange and sharing of best practices on innovation days.
Supporting the development of judges will receive special attention – they will be involved through self-analysis and individual training programmes. Creating a clear and supportive feedback format that managers will also be trained to use is on the agenda. The evaluation of judges’ work and their development is based on the competency model.
Increasing peer‑to‑peer exchange of experiences and networking, as well as offering mentoring and supervision opportunities to experienced judges, is seen as a significant improvement. Mapping training needs becomes more targeted thanks to the development of the PlanPro survey environment. There is a proposal to reorganise the Training Council into a broader development council responsible for the development of judges and the judiciary.

In the areas of organisation of administration of justice, court management and administration, the high-quality administration of justice is naturally also an objective, which includes, among other things, systematic monitoring of the quality of administration of justice and supporting the development opportunities of judges and employees. One measure to achieve these objectives is to create a system for the evaluation of the performance of individual judges. This evaluation methodology must certainly be linked to the objectives of the personnel policy discussed above to provide feedback in order to support development (and thereby quality). It is also important to distinguish between the performance of individual judges and the quality of the organisation of the entire administration of justice; in other words, judges alone should not be responsible for the quality of the administration of justice.

Simply put, the role and service standards of today’s judicial system should be adjusted to meet the expectations of society. The results and behaviour (standards) expected from the central person, the judge, in their fulfilment of the objectives of the judicial system must be defined, followed by formulating the competencies necessary to achieve them. It is necessary to be aware of the prerequisites needed for the judge’s work to be successful (in addition to developing the competencies). It must be decided which learned competencies a candidate judge should already have acquired and at what level, and which ones we are prepared to develop in the organisation. As an organisation, we are responsible for making sure that only suitable candidates become judges. As described above, the Dutch system of selection and training of judges is radically different from that of Estonia. The choice of development activities, including training, but perhaps also the adaptability and accountability of the judicial system, depends on these choices.

Recent episodes

In January 2025, the Council of Europe’s European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) publishes the Guidelines on the evaluation of the quality of work of judges[42]. The guidelines were prepared by the CEPEJ Working Group on Quality of Justice (CEPEJ‑GT‑QUAL), which aimed to define, as a further development of CCJE Opinion No. 17 [43], specific criteria and methods for measuring the quality of a judge’s work during their individual evaluation. In preparation for these guidelines, a comparative analysis[44] of the evaluation of the work of judges was carried out based on replies from 26 member states of the Council of Europe. The introduction to the document emphasises that the aim of the guidelines is not to harmonise the very different approaches to valuation existing in the Member States; rather, they aim to offer concrete guidance by building on the existing principles, thus respecting the diversity of valuation practices within Member States and allowing for flexibility and adaptation to each country’s unique judicial structure and traditions. Thereby, two basic principles are followed: (a) the evaluation shall not impede on the independence of judges; (b) the evaluation is differentiated from the disciplinary procedure. The guidelines can be summarised as follows:

The formal evaluation system should be complemented with informal methods, in particular self-assessment, peer‑review and mentoring of junior judges. Informal methods should not lead to formal consequences for the judge.
The evaluation process should apply to all judges and formal evaluation should take place every 2–4 years, more frequently for newly appointed judges. The evaluators should undergo appropriate training to ensure objectivity and consistency.
The evaluation criteria must be varied and balanced. The selection of criteria should clearly demonstrate that the quality of a judge’s work is different from the quality of the system as a whole. The evaluators should avoid negative evaluation of the quality of a judge’s work due to factors beyond the judge’s control, such as a heavy workload or poor working conditions. The evaluation criteria and procedures must be transparent and public; judges should have the opportunity to comment on the preliminary draft evaluation report.
The sources of information used in the evaluation must be reliable and include different perspectives, including the opinions of court staff and legal practitioners. To increase the judges’ trust in the evaluation process, seeking the opinion of a higher instance may be implemented.
When preparing an evaluation report, qualitative and quantitative aspects should be balanced and a clear structure, if possible predefined by legislation, should be followed.
The main purpose is to create a fair, objective and development-oriented evaluation system. The aim of both formal and informal evaluation is to achieve and maintain a high quality of judges’ work in order to strengthen public trust in the judicial system, as well as to collect information that could help improve the organisation of administration of justice and the working conditions of judges.

The pattern repeats itself

Ensuring and developing the quality of judges’ work is an important part of the functioning of the rule of law. One tool for this is an effective feedback system that allows judges to receive constructive and objective evaluation of their work. The current feedback mechanism is mainly based on the review of court decisions in courts of higher instance and communication between colleagues. While this provides some oversight, it may not offer sufficient opportunity for self-development. Therefore, additional measures have been implemented in several countries.

The evaluation and feedback of judges is a varied process in European countries, involving different methods and approaches. Many countries use structured evaluation processes where the quality of the work of judges is regularly assessed to ensure the efficiency and reliability of the administration of justice. For example, judges may undergo self-evaluation, peer evaluation, or receive feedback from external experts. It is important that the evaluation process is transparent and objective to avoid any potential preferences or bias. Research and international practices show that an effective feedback system should include multiple sources, including evaluations by parties to the proceedings, opinions from colleagues, and statistical indicators, such as the duration of proceedings and the rate of appeals. This approach would help to balance subjective and objective evaluations and provide judges with substantive information to improve their work. The purpose of evaluation systems is to support the professional development of judges, increase work motivation and improve the efficiency of the judicial system and the quality of service provided to the public.

Feedback vs evaluation vs development

Feedback plays an important role in improving performance. [45] Feedback involves constructive criticism, helping the recipient gain confidence and contemplate the behaviour that would contribute to their work performance. Feedback can be given in at least three forms: recognition, guidance and evaluation.

Recognition connects and motivates people. Recognition is very important because inner motivation is one of the critical factors for achieving high performance.

Guidance supports a (new) colleague in expanding their knowledge, skills and abilities.

Evaluation is a summarising review without recommending any changes in behaviour. Evaluation is appropriate after recognition and guidance. Evaluation based on standards is suitable if it contributes to the harmonisation of expectations and provides the judiciary with the information necessary to make decisions (e.g. training plans, promotions).

Unless we are talking about movements on the salary scale or career ladder[46], evaluating a judge should not be a goal in itself. The goal is the strength and quality of the judicial system, which cannot be built on external motivation (i.e. control and coercion). In Estonia, there are no such problems with the efficiency, quality, and reliability of the judicial system that would need to be solved by costly formal evaluation. A formal evaluation should not be applied in a situation where less restrictive measures to alleviate the same problem have not been fully exploited. I am referring to regular, informal, so-called developmental evaluation through performance reviews. In addition, the judicial system has a responsibility to first provide support in fostering mastery through informal development activities, and only then perform the evaluation as necessary.

In any case, a situation where the topic of evaluation-feedback-development is frowned upon due to duplicative measures that have unclear connections should be avoided. Development and evaluation should be kept separate; there should be no evaluation until substantive development support has been provided. If we, as an organisation, have not been able to select, guide and support a judge in a way that will help them have internal motivation (autonomy) to develop themselves, we will not be able to substitute this with external coercion or formal evaluation. In other words, there can be a formal evaluation, but an informal evaluation is a must.

It is perhaps time to talk about the training and development plan for judges as a whole, to set goals and connect it to both personnel policy and other quality control mechanisms. The Judicial Training Strategy 2025–2027, s.2, clearly expresses this connection: “Judicial training aims to ensure the quality, efficiency and reliability of the work of the courts through the development of judges’ professional skills and the shaping of values. Judicial training supports the competencies specified in the competence model for judges, which are necessary for the effective performance of judges.”

Training in the narrow sense supports professional development only to a small extent. Networking and collaboration (mentoring, peer feedback) have a greater impact. Should the Training Council aim bigger and talk about a strategy for the development of judges? Perhaps once a reorganisation of the administration of the courts, today “training of judges” and “training strategy” are concepts of the Courts Act. Still, the new training strategy approaches the topic with a broader perspective – training methods that promote networking and lean towards discussion (round tables, workshops, etc.)[47] are preferred, and the need for cooperation with all institutions that are or should be concerned about the development of judges is underlined. The aim of compiling training materials and forming a judge’s handbook, as stated in section 7.2.6 of the Judicial Training Strategy 2025–2027, should definitely be supported.

In conclusion

We need a more systematic and conscious approach to feedback of judges in Estonia. It should be regular and structured, support the self-development of judges, and contribute to maintaining and improving the quality of their work. The feedback system should not be punitive; it should focus on development, supporting the professional growth of judges and strengthening trust in the judicial system. A suitable solution would be conducting regular performance reviews within the court, conducted by chief judges of courts or heads of departments, and supplemented by peer-to-peer feedback. With a new generation of judges, there is an opportunity to gradually develop a new mindset that values cooperation, empowers the autonomy and internal motivation of judges, and increases the unity of the judicial system and shared responsibility for its quality. It must be clearly communicated to judges currently taking office that, along with a position for life and independence, their so-called contractual obligation includes lifelong self-development and responsibility for the high quality of their work.

But perhaps it would be easier to start (and restart?) with the systematic harmonisation of case law and the development of standards as stipulated in the CCJE Opinion No. 11 (2008), section 71[48]. In this regard, we can be pleased with the updated version of the brief recommendations for preparing a judicial decision completed in 2024 and the updated good practice of court proceedings to be presented at the plenary session in 2025. Or we can try the online questionnaire for self-evaluation of judges, introduced by Reda Molienė in this yearbook.

____________________________

[1] Minutes of the IX Ordinary Plenary Session of the Judges (16.02.2025).
[2] P. Pikamäe. Summary of discussions on the evaluation of the work of a judge – how to proceed from here, page 1.
[3] R. Teeveer. Evaluating the work of a judge – should we fear feedback? (16.02.2025).
[4] P. Pikamäe. Summary of discussions on the evaluation of the work of a judge – how to proceed from here, page 2.
[5] Minutes of the X Ordinary Plenary Session of the Judges (16.02.2025).
[6] See Minutes of the IX Ordinary Plenary Session of the Judges; H. Särgava. The obligation to implement a performance review – the perspective of a large court. – https://www.riigikohus.ee/sites/default/files/elfinder/dokumendid/2011sargava.pdf (16.02.2025); V. Lapimaa. Implementing performance reviews in courts – the perspective of a small court. – https://www.riigikohus.ee/sites/default/files/elfinder/dokumendid/2011lapimaa.pdf (16.02.2025)
[7] I. Koolmeister. Minutes of the IX Ordinary Plenary Session of the Judges (16.02.2025).
[8] See Decision No. 1 of the X Plenary Session of Judges https://www.riigikohus.ee/sites/default/files/elfinder/dokumendid/tagasiside.pdf (16.02.2025).
[9] Yearbook of the Estonian Courts 2018, pp. 99–107.
[10] See, for example, I. Pilving. – P. Pikamäe, K. Leichter (ed.). Courts Act. Annotated edition. Tallinn: Juura 2018, Section 45; U. Lõhmus. Administration of the Judiciary under the Courts Act Bill. – Juridica 2010, No. 2, p. 75; G. Suumann. Supervision of Serving Judges. – Juridica 2006, no. 3, p. 183; A. Pärsimägi. Tsiviilkohtumenetluse sugemetega reisikiri. (Travel letter on civil court proceedings.) – Juridica 2000, no. 10, p. 671; K. Kullerkupp. Kohtusüsteemi reguleerimise probleeme. (Problems related to regulating the court system.) – Juridica 1997, No. 10, p. 496; L. Otto. Kohtunike distsiplinaarvastutus ja distsiplinaarkolleegiumi 2002. kuni 2015. aasta praktika analüüs. (Disciplinary liability of judges and analysis of the practice of the Disciplinary Chamber from 2002 to 2015.) Master’s thesis. – https://dspace.ut.ee/bitstream/handle/10062/51740/otto_laura.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (16.02.2025); H. Salmann. Kohtunike distsiplinaarkolleegiumi tegevuse ülevaade aastatel 2010 kuni 2012. (Overview of the activities of the Disciplinary Chamber of Judges from 2010 to 2012.) Supreme Court. – https://www.riigikohus.ee/sites/default/files/elfinder/dokumendid/lisa_nr_14_h_salmann_kohtunike_distsiplinaarkolleegium.pdf (16.02.2025).
[11] Kohtute seaduse muutmise ja sellega seonduvalt teiste seaduste muutmise seadus. (Act on Amendments to the Courts Act and Related Amendments to Other Acts.) RT I, 01.03.2023, 1.
[12] Kohtute seaduse muutmise ja sellega seonduvalt teiste seaduste muutmise seadus (Act on Amendments to the Courts Act and Related Amendments to Other Acts) 633 SE. –https://www.riigikogu.ee/tegevus/eelnoud/eelnou/5f154ed9-4920-4bde-98c6-63af7f5f7264/Kohtute+seaduse+muutmise+ja+sellega+seonduvalt+teiste+seaduste+muutmise+seadus (30.03.2025).
[13] V. Kõve, M. Möls. Kohtute haldamise nõukoja tegevusest 2022. aastal (Activities of the Council for Administration of Courts in 2022) (30.03.2025).
[14] https://eelnoud.valitsus.ee/main/mount/docList/9f8d74b9-62f3-4611-91ed-50e4f557a629#yr1XNyHv
[15] Legislative intent to draft the Act on Amendments to the Courts Act 10.11.2023, p. 1.2; the fact that interviews are not conducted was also confirmed by a survey carried out among chief judges of the courts (February 2025).
[16] The following is based primarily on the knowledge and materials obtained during a study visit that took place on 3–5 March 2025.
[17] True, the chairman of the court may also apply milder disciplinary measures.
[18] Raad voor de rechtspraak. Paper on the Evaluation of Judges in the Netherlands, 28.02.2025.
[19] The court board consists of three members: two judges and one member who is not a judge. The chairman of the board and also the court president is always a judge, with another judge acting as vice-chairman.
[20]E.g. in English, Professional standard: The three-judge decision-making process (16.03.2025).
[21] Simplified civil proceedings, debt prevention and resolution and alleviation of complex divorce cases (community judge).
[22] See, e.g., the position profile of a judge https://werkenbijderechtspraak.nl/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Referentiefunctie-rechter-4-april-2012.pdf (13.04.2025).
[23] The court consists of teams that deal with the operational management of the court (finance, planning and reporting, communication, human resources, etc.) and teams that are responsible for core activities (e.g. handling court matters in the areas of administrative law, civil law and criminal law). The latter are traditionally managed by a head of the team, who is usually a judge, primus inter pares among the other judges of the team. Given the significant size of these teams, often over 30 employees, the team also has a head of legal services who oversees the work of the team’s judicial clerks and legal advisors. Raad voor de rechtspraak. Paper on the Evaluation of Judges in the Netherlands, 28.02.2025.
[24] Since 2002, the judges’ (legal status) act (Wet rechtspositie rechterlijke ambtenaren) has stipulated that the governing bodies of courts must regularly evaluate the performance of judges. The addition of a provision to the 2014 directive of the (legal status of) judicial officials (Besluit rechtspositie rechterlijke ambtenaren) formalised the obligation of the court management to organise an annual performance evaluation of judges.
[25] Raad voor de rechtspraak. Paper on the Evaluation of Judges in the Netherlands, 28.02.2025.
[26] The mandatory volume of further training for judges is 30 hours per year.
[27] Raad voor de rechtspraak. Paper on the Evaluation of Judges in the Netherlands, 28.02.2025, p 6.4.
[28] See also ‘The judge looks in the mirror’. The-Judiciary-System-in-the-Netherlands, p 28 ff.
[29] Raad voor de rechtspraak. Paper on the Evaluation of Judges in the Netherlands, 28.02.2025.
[30] See Minutes of the CAC session of 5-6 October 2023, p 4.
[31] See Minutes of the CAC session of 5-6 October 2023, p 4.
[32] At the Training Council on 16 September 2024, and at the Judicial Examination Committee on 15 October 2024.
[33] See also presentation A. Hussar “Competency Model for Judges” (video) at the XXIII Ordinary Plenary Session of Judges on 30 May 2024 in Pärnu.
[34] According to subsection 73(3) of the Courts Act, the form of the report of a judge supervising a judge is established by the judgeship examination committee. The judgeship examination committee approved the form by decision No. 3.1 of 27 June 2023.
[35] The form is available here: https://www.riigikohus.ee/et/kohtunikueksamikomisjon/komisjoni-tooga-seotud-dokumendid.
[36] Survey of chief judges of courts, February 2025.
[37] The minutes of the CAC meeting are available on the judicial system’s website: https://www.kohus.ee/sites/default/files/dokumendid/123.%20protokoll%209.12.2022.pdf (13.04.2025).
[38] The valid form can be found here: https://www.riigikohus.ee/et/kohtunikueksamikomisjon/komisjoni-tooga-seotud-dokumendid (13.04.2025).
[39] A questionnaire with a similar structure for assessing personal training needs based on the competency model for judges has been in use since 2024.
[40] The judicial system uses the PlanPro environment to conduct annual interviews and satisfaction surveys, as well as to collect information on training needs for judges.
[41] Court Development Plan 2024–2030 (15.02.2025).
[42] Council of Europe, January 2025. European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). Adopted at the 43rd plenary meeting of the CEPEJ (Strasbourg, 3 –4 December 2024).
[43] Opinion No. 17 (2014) on the “Evaluation of Judges’ Work, the Quality of Justice and Respect for Judicial Independence” of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE). The opinion stresses that evaluation systems for judges should support their professional development and ensure the quality of the administration of justice, while preserving the independence of judges.
[44] Added to the guidelines:
[45] P. Gibbs. Transform Justice 2014. Fit for purpose: do magistrates get the training and development they need? (28.02.2025).
[46] See, for example, the article by Dr. Erik Kerševan, Judge of the Supreme Court of Slovenia, “The Evaluation System for Judges in Slovenia and Its Positive (and Negative) Aspects” in this Yearbook of Estonian Courts.
[47] Judicial Training Strategy 2025–2027, section 7.6.3.
[48] 71. By their case-law, their examination of judicial practices and their annual reports, superior courts may contribute to the quality of judicial decisions and their evaluation; in this respect, it is of utmost importance that their case-law is clear, consistent and constant. The superior courts may also contribute to the quality of judicial decisions by developing guidelines for the lower courts, in which attention is drawn to the applicable principles, in accordance with the relevant case-law.