Four themes emerged during this meeting. First, an emphasis was put on merit and integrity as criteria for selection, and on the need for a transparent and well-established criteria, process and designated authorities for appointment. A distinction was made between the first appointment to the judiciary and promotion (within career judiciaries).

Second, appointments to ordinary courts were distinguished from appointments to constitutional courts or supreme courts, as the latter usually follow specific procedures for appointment. In this context, the possibility and desirability of judicially reviewing appointment decisions was considered in light of specific examples - and the treatment of irregularities in the appointment of judges was raised in this meeting as it was in the previous meeting on 13 May.

Third, the current reference in Section 4 MtSP to the principle of democratic accountability triggered some further discussion on the type of accountability judicial office holders are subject to, from being responsive to society in their judicial decisions and in the composition of the court, to being efficient in the conduct of judicial business.

Fourth and finally, the regulation of the retirement age was discussed, acknowledging that non-discriminatory rules on retirement could still constitute a systemic breach of the rule of law. There was agreement, perhaps unsurprisingly in light of the above, that this Section 4 MtSP needs thorough re-drafting.

You can read more about this project here.