Based on theoretical findings of scholars specialising in judiciary, international legal acts and Ukrainian laws, this dissertation performs a complex study of the judicial professional education system and develops a list of theoretical provisions, conclusions and practical recommendations seeking to foster development of the judiciary as a whole and judicial professional education including optimisation of norms of the national legislation and increasing efficiency of the national judiciary in particular.
This dissertation is the first qualified research in the domestic legal science that applies a comprehensive approach to the definition of judicial professional education system as a set of: 1) statutes governing educational issues, and educational institutions offering training programmes; 2) majors, programmes, plans, materials, forms and methods of teaching. Based on the above, I have identified the key elements of the judicial professional education system that are interdependent and constantly interact, thus ensuring the system’s integrity and ability to serve its main purpose, i.e. maintaining the professional qualifications of judges at an appropriate level. Such key elements are: a subject of educational activity; an object of educational activity (candidates for the position of judge, practicing judges); national standards of judicial education; judges professional training areas and training activities.
Based on the analysis of the experience of European countries, I have identified the following common features of judges training: a) organisation of specialised training of judicial staff is entrusted to a special body; b) such a body is largely independent and autonomous from the executive and legislative branches of government, although they may in one way or another influence the management process within their legislative competences; c) training is divided into several stages, usually two: the initial training, when the priority is given to special training of judicial candidates before taking office, and the system of advanced training of current judges that can be both centralised (at the premises of higher educational institutions and courts) and specialised (at the premises of a specialised centre); d) training is financed by the state; e) training is conducted by practicing judges or renowned specialists in the relevant field of knowledge (scholars).
I have stated that overall, our current judicial regulations largely comply with universally accepted standards in terms of fostering the judges professional training and determining the legal status of a body tasked with the judicial education. However, in order to better address the problems of training highly qualified judicial personnel, it is crucial to further improve this area: in particular, we need to determine the optimal length of time required to spend on training of judicial candidates, to provide a special educational institution for judges with highly professional staff, innovative information technologies and programmes for improvement of the education process and to introduce the latest methods of objective assessment in final judge examinations at the end of training, professional conversion and periodic advanced training courses etc.
I have expressed the opinion that it is expedient to oblige (a) legal institutions of higher education to consult with the High Qualification Commission of Judges and the National School of Judges of Ukraine concerning a necessity to introduce or improve curricula for students; (b) the National School of Judges of Ukraine to make such recommendations based on its own observations during the special training of judicial candidates; and the High Qualification Commission of Judges to make their decisions based on a thorough study of the results of competitive admission.
I have proposed a reasoned approach to studies according to which training programmes and judges training and professional conversion courses are to be developed: 1) in accordance with the objective training needs of the judiciary; 2) taking into account the peculiarities of the target audience (jurisdiction, length of service as a judge, specialisation (if required); 3) the relevance of the topic (“advanced course”); 4) with the active participation of the judicial community.
