Towards a culture of the result in the judiciary

Towards a culture of the result in the judiciary

Point.fr - published on 10/01/2011 at 10: 03 - modified 01/10/2011 at 18: 29
After the so-called premium "modular", a second "bonus incentive to collective performance" will reward the magistrates.




Premium performance indeed appears to be inconsistent with the spirit of corps of the judges. © PhotoPQR / progress / Maxppp

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The adage "work more to earn more" savings not the judicial world. The remuneration of judges sitting on performance applies since 2002 in the courts through an individual premium so-called "modular". "Those who work most shall be rewarded to those who work less", was the Minister of Justice Dominique Perben in 2003. The average rate of the scalable premium was so far 9%, "bonus incentive to the collective performance of the service" (Decree of 1 September 2011). Its amount will be set by the Ministry of Justice still undisclosed criteria.

"These premiums are increasing the dependence of judges for their hierarchy", said Matthew Bonduelle, General Secretary of the Union of the judiciary.

Since the beginning, this type of measure "managerial" based on a logic of performance is far from making unanimity among stakeholders. Magistrates unions sought, in vain, its repeal. It is a "tool of domestication very strong at the hands of the hierarchy", decrypts Matthew Bonduelle.

A more "productive" justice

So far, "the treatment was paid for almost mechanical and impersonal manner, according to the busy function and seniority." "What is changing with the introduction of premiums is the fact index pay to an individual assessment (qualitative and quantitative) of the performance of an individual" wrote Elisa Chelle, teacher-researcher at Sciences-Po Grenoble in the journal law & society (No. 78, September 2011). Citing Max Weber, the author continues: "Where the former regime placed the honour as the main criterion of legitimacy, industrial society place technical competence, and the neoliberal society, performance."


In the dock, the risk of erasing the specificity of the judicial institution. Premium performance indeed appears to be inconsistent with the spirit of corps of the judges. "Introduce a logic of performance and statistics in justice returns to smooth the work of the judges who will necessarily lose in quality", fears a magistrate. Through the standardization of the judicial work that points the disincentive of magistrates to properly motivate their decisions. How also reconcile "productivity" and judicial discipline? Is it symbolically conceivable to associate a judge with a Manager? If the establishment of a differential means fighting the atavistic slowness of justice, how not to fear the threats that would place a too rapid justice on the quality of justice?

Inequality of magistrates before the premium

Finally, the performance fits it disinterestedness, the detachment of the judge for money? In public law, the treatment of the official means not not rewarding activity, but maintain a social rank. By correlating activity of the justice and financial compensation, "the bonus challenges the idea of equal treatment only weighted by seniority and service, expensive idea to public law," said Elisa Chelle.


In gratifying one another, the individual premium stigmatizing others. Worse, it distorted criteria. Because its amount takes into account neither files nor their thickness technical difficulty. In addition, the choice of the criteria is left to the discretion of the heads of jurisdiction, which creates risks of misuse of the system. "From the moment it creates this power, it opens the door to abuse, and, as the head of jurisdiction does not have to give reasons for its choice, note Matthew Bonduelle." "The Chancery does also not to escalate the means of assessment." That have a fixed budget, the Chief of Court has also limited to make room for manoeuvre move lines, and premiums that unpacking each are removed to others.

Another point: the idea of an appreciation "objective" of the premium collides with its application to incomparable judged trades ("seat" and "floor" for example), especially in their reporting relationships. "The Attorney has a greater proximity with attorneys and can better assess the quality of their work, while the President of the tribunal has a more encrypted folders view, explains Matthieu Bondelle." "There is indeed an over-rating of the prosecutors from the judges." However, the situation is still confined to scandal. "In practice, most judges now have the average rate, with to the margin a privileged few." It remains to know statistics.