contents
The Aargau parliament elected judges on Tuesday. This time an election was exciting.
The election of the authorities in the Aargau Parliament, the Great Council, is actually a routine matter. On Tuesday, however, the election of the chief justices was eagerly awaited because one of the judges had recently come under increasing criticism. The bar association criticized him and the federal court overturned several judgments approved by his chamber.
At the end of August, 17 rulings by the Federal Criminal Court showed that public defenders in Aargau were paid too little. 16 of 17 injunctions concern the same Trial Division of the Supreme Court, which is presided over by Jann Six.
Legend:
The Aargau High Court in Aarau. The problems at the court were an issue in parliament, but the parliament found that the judiciary should solve them, not politicians.
Keystone/Gaetan Bally
The Supreme Court then declared that the number of cases criticized by the Federal Criminal Court was comparatively low. The lawyers’ association, on the other hand, demanded in various media that the court president of the chamber concerned had to be voted out of office, saying that he was reducing the compensation paid to the public defenders arbitrarily and systematically.
Parliament remained cautious
On Tuesday, Parliament had to settle the thorny question of whether to re-elect the criticized Chief Justice Jann Six. Six was re-elected with 113 votes. This is the worst result compared to other chief justice election results, but it is far above the absolute majority. All proposed judges were elected or re-elected.
The discussion in the Council was rather modest. The Green Councilor Markus Dietschi warned that the Federal Criminal Court rulings, which the Supreme Court corrected, must be processed. The SVP parliamentary group argued that the overall renewal elections had indeed given something to talk about, but that the people proposed were supported and that they were all qualified. In doing so, she stood behind “her” SVP judge Jann Six.
Who should intervene?
The President of the Parliament’s Judiciary Commission, Rolf Haller, told SRF that it is currently not Parliament’s job to vote people out. It’s about day-to-day business, that’s the responsibility of the judiciary. His commission will continue to seek contact with the judiciary and have agreed to meet again. One hopes for an internal solution of possible problems.
One wants to prevent a party-political hic-hack.
Parliament is fundamentally cautious, says SRF editor Barbara Mathys. “You want to prevent a party-political hic-hack. If the situation escalated and judges were criticized because of their party affiliation, you would have conditions like in the USA, for example, and you wanted to prevent that in Aargau.”