Since 2015, the National Office for the Judiciary (NOJ) has been publishing an integrity questionnaire for judges every year to understand the processes and circumstances relating the integrity of the judiciary. The NOJ continuously strives to keep the questions clear and up-to-date and the questionnaires’ length limited to keep the target group motivated in participation, while providing lots of information at the same time.

In 2019, judges were able to express themselves again in a shorter, more concise online questionnaire with the same content as the 2018 EJNC survey, on a voluntary basis, anonymously.

The survey, which has been running since 2015, has been the most popular this year and the results show a positive picture.

96.52% of the judges declared themselves to be independent. Their answers also indicate that judges recognize and consciously avoid integrity threats, corruption risks, and make their decisions independently and without influence.

In the first quarter of 2019, the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ) also conducted an online survey for professional judges regarding their individual independence. A summary of the results was produced during the summer and is available on the organization's website.

A total of 11,335 judges from 25 countries completed the questionnaire, including Hungarian judges for the first time. Lawyers were also allowed to fill out the questionnaire this year, but only 4,250 from 25 countries completed it. The report itself points out that these answers can only be indicative, and that the low response rate should be taken into account during evaluation.

The NOJ and ENCJ questionnaires were filled out roughly by the same number of judges, but in the case of the ENCJ survey, precise information cannot be established, as only a bar graph is available, and the number of staff comes from 2014.

The NOJ’s integrity questionnaire was completed by 489 judges in 2019, which is 16.56% of the total number of 2952 judges on February 28, 2019.

In all cases, the Hungarian questionnaire is designed to avoid influential questions, and to apply follow up questions after questions related to shortcomings, so that the form or cause of the shortcomings experienced by the respondent is revealed. The ENCJ questionnaire lacks these control questions, and the wording of the questions usually suggests the existence of a shortage, which makes it difficult to answer objectively.

In addition, the evaluation method, the lack of transparency relating the results, and the use of large-scale, text-based assessment impair the usefulness of the latter questionnaire.
The respondents of both questionnaires agreed on the main issue: according to the ENCJ, the Hungarian respondent judges rated their individual independence on a ten-point scale close to the average of 9. In the NOJ’s 2019 integrity survey 96.52% of the responding judges considered themselves independent.

At the same time, lawyers rated judges' independence only 5.2 out of a possible ten, which is worth considering even if we know that the number of respondents was very low.
The survey - even with its methodological shortcomings - highlights the importance of certain areas, helping the work of administrative leaders. By utilizing this knowledge, it is possible to explore individual problems, its causes, and to eliminate them.

Important observations related to the evaluation of the NOJ’s integrity questionnaire

The NOJ’s 2019 survey results show that a higher percentage of judges value the clarity of judicial decisions. 88% of respondents believe that rulings are understandable for society. These results reveal the effect of local and central administrative measures aiming to improve clarity of judicial decisions.

The evaluation of the transparency of judicial decisions has been improved thanks to the recent administrative measures: while only 70% of earlier respondents had a positive opinion related to the issue, in 2019 76% responded in a positive way. This is the result of conscious executive decisions, because lately – thanks to the evaluation of earlier surveys – there was an emphasis put on publishing administrative measures.

458 respondents found that the order of case distribution establishes impartial and independent decision making – at least to a medium extent. This number was 379 in 2018. Number of respondents choosing “maximal extent” is constantly rising.

Apart from this, the ratio of respondents finding the order of case distribution not sufficiently establishing or not establishing impartial and independent decision making is decreasing: in 2017 5,56%, in 2018 4,6%, 2019 3,27% of judges responded this way.

On the questionnaires

Multiple distortive factors must be taken into account during the evaluation of these so-called perceptional or emotional questionnaires.

It must be considered, that most of the respondents will be either from the group of supporters or protesters of the issue or the organization, while respondents showing neutral feelings towards the questions will less likely to participate, or their ratio will be significantly lower.

Answers also depend on external motivation and the time of participation. 
The easiest way to eliminate shortages of questionnaires is to use other methods of obtaining information as well.