sou · GOB399d2 · 2001-01-01 00:00:00 — is in favour of testing these solutions over a pilot period and subsequently evaluating them. supports the developments witnessed towards a stronger preparatory process in TFNs chief appointment matters. External help from consultants is valuable in the chief recruitment process and should, as has now been suggested, form a compulsory feature thereof. There is a problem in the traditional career of a judge whereby judges seek confirmation in their roles as judges by applying for chief positions. There should be possibilities for confirmation and stimulation for judges in their judging tasks. This can be achieved by means of judges changing work assignments, e.g. switching between serving in higher and lower courts or between generalist and specialist assignments. The public aspect of assessments of personal qualities and similar material may form a deterrent for persons interested in chief positions. However, proposing that such material be kept confidential is not viable. A future leader and chief must be prepared for exposure to this type of public scrutiny. is discussing various solutions – on the one hand that a TFN member and a consultant take part in interviews with candidates, and on the other that interviews and assessments of personal qualities take place at an earlier stage and that the person interviewed/tested can subsequently decide on whether he or she wants to apply for a position as a head of a court or another leadership position in the courts. Both alternatives are attractive and, according to the committee, should be considered in the future overhaul of TFNs routines and work forms. The recruitment of heads of courts would be simplified if the judiciary included a system for attracting and training potential leaders at an early stage. The tradition prevailing in certain courts, whereby young judges test out administrative assignments, is valuable. This order should be extended to cover other positions at more courts. also supports the plans to introduce compulsory training in leadership for younger judges, and believes that there is reason to consider such training for all judges. In this way, the significance of leadership and the leadership responsibility of all judges come to light. For the heads of courts, the main focus is on the managerial and leadership training within the DVs Development Programme for Heads of Courts. supports the enhancement and improvement of the programme, which is taking place in the context of a close dialogue with the participants. Different forms of managerial support for heads of courts should be structured in parallel with each other. views the development of internal networks between heads of courts positively, and is of the opinion that there is reason to consider other network constellations with heads of courts and managers within other fields too. In this context, attention should be drawn however to perceivable problems that may arise in terms of conflicts of interest in the context of such mixed networks. It is also important that the heads of courts have access to professional expert help. In this context, DVs specialist knowledge should be utilised and there should also be access to external assistance from consultants. Another interesting means of support that should be developed can be found in various forms of mentorship. Superior court presidents could support lower court presidents. The forms for these contacts should be flexible and developed in the context of a dialogue between the superior court president and the lower court president in question. does not suggest that an order with organised performance reviews between superior court and lower court presidents be introduced as a general solution. To obtain a clearer and fundamentally more attractive set of rules for the assignment and responsibility of the head of the court, the committee suggests that these rules be better adapted to the activities of the court and entered directly into the courts instructions and that the instructions referral to the Ordinance (verksförordningen) be removed. The management function at the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court The task of the committee has not been to submit more detailed opinions on or proposals regarding the external and internal structure and organisation of the supreme courts. The assessment of the managerial function of these courts should instead be implemented in the light of the present circumstances. In the event of more thorough changes, the proposals and viewpoints set forth may therefore alter and require fresh consideration. The president of the highest instance should continue to bear overall managerial responsibility in the court. A change in the role of the president towards a more administrative function than is currently the case is, however, an undesirable development. The president should primarily be a judge. The person occupying the position as president should not be required to have any particular administrative skills. On the other hand, he or she should be interested in managerial issues and administration, and be aware that presidents of the supreme courts must not only represent their own courts, but also the judiciary at large to a certain degree. The key function as regards the supreme courts administration should lie with the senior judge referee position. The most important assignment of the senior judge referee is to manage the courts office, in particular the preparatory organisation. Much would indicate that this requires the senior judge referee having a background as a judge and preferably also experience from working as a judge referee in the court. Natural candidates for senior judge referee positions in the supreme courts are ordinary judges with a proven aptitude for managerial assignments, e.g. heads of courts or heads of divisions in lower courts. It is important that senior judge referees have the requisite support in managerial and administrative tasks. In these courts, this requires persons with excellent skills in the field of personnel and financial administration, as well as other people performing managerial assignments under the senior judge referee. In this context, the committee is discussing, inter alia, an order whereby the senior judge referee function is strengthened by the of a number of chief judge referees positions. Besides supervising the preparatory organisation, the senior judge referee shall make decisions in ongoing administrative issues in the court. Important overall administrative questions should be submitted to the president or the plenary assembly. The presidents of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court should be appointed by the government within the group of each courts members that are among the most senior in their positions. In the selection, regard should be taken to e.g. remaining time in service or whether a certain member has a particular aptitude for or interest in managerial assignments. It is desirable for the president to be in his or her position for at least three years. Particular importance should also be attributed to the presidents will and ability to undertake the assignment of representing the court in various contexts. These requirements are generally on the rise, not least bearing in mind the international trend. In future, however, in the light of the fact that the new order for the choice of president has been recognised and established, the committee deems considering that the courts themselves appoint president or submit candidate proposals for this position as attractive and worthwhile. has not found any linguistic reason to change the titles for the heads of the Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court to president. There is nothing to prevent ordförande from being translated into president in international contexts when appropriate. A general endeavour towards internationalisation does not constitute sufficient grounds to change the title, according to the committee.