Metrika

  • citati u SCIndeksu: [1]
  • citati u CrossRef-u:0
  • citati u Google Scholaru:[]
  • posete u poslednjih 30 dana:1
  • preuzimanja u poslednjih 30 dana:0

Sadržaj

članak: 7 od 40  
Back povratak na rezultate
2017, br. 2, str. 77-92
Upravljanje rezultatima rada kao deo odgovornosti pravosuđa
Institut za uporedno pravo, Beograd

e-adresamaticmarina77@yahoo.com
Projekat:
Srpsko i evropsko pravo - upoređivanje i usaglašavanje (MPNTR - 179031)

Sažetak
Autor u radu nastoji da predstavi značaj praćenja rezultata rada pravosuđa, kao i razvoj shvatanja da nezavisnost pravosuđa podrazumeva i odgovornost pravosudnog sistema za ostvarene rezultate. Praćenje rezultata rada pravosuđa sa aspekta efikasnosti, kvaliteta i pristupa pravdi je relativno noviji trend, koji se postepeno razvijao i unapređivao, kao posledica zahteva društva i građana da država racionalnije troši budžetska sredstva. Analizirani su različiti modeli praćenja rezultata rada pravosuđa koji su nastajali i razvijali se na nacionalnom nivou (Sjedinjene Američke Države i Holandija), kao i u okviru regionalnih organizacija kao što su Saveta Evrope (Komisija za efikasnost pravosuđa) i Evropska unija (Izveštaj o stanju pravosuđa). Posebno su predstavljeni Indeks vladavine prava, kao i metodologija funkcionalne analize pravosuđa. U radu je ukazano na pozitivno iskustvo koje je srpsko pravosuđe ostvarilo uvođenjem sistema nagrade za ostvarene rezultate rada.
Reference
*** History of the Conference of state court administrators: 1955 - 2005. http://cosca.ncsc.org/~/media/Microsites/Files/COSCA/Web%20documents/History-of-COSCA.ashx, 15.05.2017
*** (2003) Charte Marianne: Pour un meilleur accueil. Paris, French Republic
Albers, P. (2008) Judicial systems in Europe compared. u: van Rhee C.H., Uzelac A. [ur.] Civil Justice between Efficiency and Quality: From Ius Communie to the CEPEJ, Intersetia, 9-25
Anderson, J.H., i dr. (2005) Judicial systems in transition economies: Assessing the past, looking to the future. Washington: World Bank
Bouckaert, G., van de Walle, S. (2001) Government and trust in government. u: Ponencia presentada en la Annual Conference of the European Group on Public Administration, Vaasa, Finland
Council for the Judiciary (2006) Quality measuring system for the judiciary, components and normative framework. the Hague
Department of Justice - Office of Justice Programs - Bureau of Justice Assistance (1997) Planning guide for using the trial standards and measurement system. Washington, US, https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/161568.pdf, 15.05.2017
Fabri, M. (2005) Policies to enhance the quality of justice in Europe. u: Fabri M., Jean J.P., Langbroek P., Puliat H. [ur.] L’administration de la justice en Europe et l’évaluation de sa qualité, Paris: Monthrestien, 69‐83
Guarnieri, C., Pederzoli, P. (2002) The Power of Judges. Oxford University Press (OUP)
Johnsen, J.T. (2012) The European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) - Reforming European Justice Systems - 'Mission Impossible?'. International Journal for Court Administration, 4(3): 1
Keilitz, I. (2005) How do we stack up against other courts? The challenges of comparative performance measurement. Court Manager, vol. 19, 4
la Porta, R., López‐de‐Silanes, F., Pop‐Eleches, C., Shleifer, A. (2004) Judicial Checks and Balances. Journal of Political Economy, 112(2): 445-470
Lane, J.E. (2000) New public management. London: Routledge
Manning, N., Parison, N. (2004) Determining the structure and functions of government: Program and functional reviews. World Bank, 5
Merryman, J.H., i dr. (1979) Law and social change in Mediterranean Europe and Latin America: A handbook of legal and social indicators for comparative study. Stanford
Ostrom, B., Hanson, R. (2010) Achieving high performance: A framework for courts. Williamsburg: National Center for State Courts, 58
Piana, D. (2016) Judicial Accountabilities in New Europe. Informa UK Limited
Rakić, V., Vodinelić, A., Knežević, B., Reljanović, M. (2012) Reforma pravosuđa u Srbiji 2008-2012. Beograd: Pravni fakultet Univerziteta Union
Schauffler, R.Y. (2007) Judicial accountability in the US State Courts
Measuring court performance. Utrecht Law Review, 3(1): 112
Scottish Office, Crown Office (1991) Scottish courts administration: Justice charter
Sherwood, R.M., Shepherd, G., de Souza, C.M. (1994) Judicial systems and economic performance. Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 34: 101-116
van Gunsteren, H.R. The ethical context of bureaucracy and performance analysis. u: Guidance, control, and evaluation in the public sector: The Bielefeld interdisciplinary project, Berlin
Vile, M.J.C. (1998) Constitutionalism and the separation of powers. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund
Working Group on Quality of Justice (2010) Conducting satisfaction surveys of court users in Council of Europe member states. CEPEJ, Report, https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet?command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImage=1908769&Sec-Mode=1&DocId=1664596&Usage=2, 15.05.2017
World Bank (1998) Development and human rights: Role of the World Bank
 

O članku

jezik rada: srpski
vrsta rada: izvorni naučni članak
objavljen u SCIndeksu: 27.07.2017.