English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The implementation of the constitutional principle of judicial independence directly correlates with the criteria by which their activity is being assessed. Russian courts use judicial statistics for assessing the performance of judges. This article analyzes the applicability of statistical indicators as direct indicators of the performance of judges. The hypothesis advanced that with sufficient pressure and absence of artificial manipulations, the statistical probability of maximum indicators of &amp;ldquo;quality&amp;rdquo; and &amp;ldquo;terms&amp;rdquo; tends to zero. Statistical values are determined by a range of factors, including those that do not depend on the judges. Their objective and direct imputation to judges misinforms and distorts the reality. The assessment of mental work of the judges in exact figures is pointless. The conclusion is made that the achievement of the maximum statistical indicators cannot be a value orientation of the judicial system. The simplicity of their use is deceptive. In reality, the assessment of judges by &amp;ldquo;quality&amp;rdquo;, &amp;ldquo;quantity&amp;rdquo; and &amp;ldquo;terms&amp;rdquo; is imbalanced, inconsistent, and non-functional. Statistical indicators can be used for assessing the performance of judges only as indirect indicators. In this case, it is feasible to use the &amp;ldquo;red flags&amp;rdquo; method, which means that only significant departure from the norm should be taken in account in assessing judicial activity.	

Indicators of judicial statistics as criteria for assessing judicial activity