The CEELI Institute is proud to announce the launch of a new publication:
Guidelines on Alternatives to Extraordinary Judicial Vetting – a regional, peer-led initiative developed by judges, for judges, and designed to strengthen judicial accountability while preserving judicial independence.
This publication is the latest product of the CEELI Central and Eastern European Judicial Exchange Network, a unique platform that brings together sitting judges from across the region to share experiences, collaborate on reform initiatives, and develop practical tools to advance the rule of law.
Building on the momentum of the CEELI Institute’s 2024 Guidelines on Judicial Vetting, this companion volume shifts the focus to credible alternatives that avoid the often disruptive and controversial nature of full-fledged vetting processes. Drawing on lessons learned from over 20 countries across Central and Eastern Europe, the Guidelines provide a structured overview of tools and mechanisms that can serve as effective checks on judicial performance and integrity without threatening judicial autonomy.
Key areas covered in the Guidelines include:
· Regular accountability mechanisms such as performance evaluation, asset and integrity checks
· Disciplinary liability frameworks that align with European Court of Human Rights standards
· The involvement of international experts and independent observers in judicial appointment and disciplinary processes
· Comparative experiences from countries such as Albania, Armenia, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, and many more
The publication also contains a robust set of recommendations for policymakers, judicial councils, and civil society stakeholders, focused on establishing transparent, rights-respecting accountability frameworks that reinforce public confidence in the judiciary.
As the challenges of balancing judicial independence and accountability come to the forefront across Europe and beyond, these Guidelines offer a timely and constructive guidance grounded in practical experience, legal standards, and a commitment to both judicial independence and integrity.
📖 Read the full Guidelines here.
