The fact is that the judicial branch of government does not enjoy a very high public esteem, its popularity is somewhere on a par with the political branches of government (parliament, government), it is openly ridiculed by those accused of serious crimes, judgements are unreasonably long and the backlog of cases is already a global phenomenon, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has already handed down many judgements against the state, and there have been a number of annulments of judgements in higher courts. Judges are appointed by Parliament for life. I do not know what the official justification for this is, but it certainly does not stand up to common-sense scrutiny. In Slovenia, it also means that, regardless of the quality of their work, they have secured a place at the taxpayer's trough until retirement. At the same time, this inhibits the inflow of 'fresh blood'.
 
It is proposed that judges should continue to be appointed by Parliament and that some indicators of the quality of their work should be introduced:
 
If a higher court of appeal finally sets aside a judgment on the grounds of procedural errors, which translated means that the judge was careless, to say the least, in the judicial process, that judge will be given a yellow card.
The yellow card is not erased (for a minimum of 10 years) and is retained even if the judge is transferred to another court or temporarily retired from the judiciary. An exception may be made for beginners. If their yellow card has served its educational purpose during the induction period (the quality of their work has improved), it can be deleted after 2 years.
A certain number of yellow cards (say 3) is a clear indication that there is something seriously wrong with the referee's professionalism. A red card is given, which means immediate termination of employment, a lifetime ban from the judiciary and better luck in the real sector.
If the ECtHR rules against the state on points relating to the work of the courts (e.g. the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time or the right to effective judicial protection), it means that someone has fairly embarrassed the whole state and heaped costs on it. The judicial process in question is investigated at all stages and all those responsible for the debacle are removed from the dock with a direct red card. Beginners may get off with an indelible yellow card, but this should be the exception rather than the rule.
If a court gives a final acquittal in a criminal case, it means that the prosecution insisted on proceeding even though they did not gather enough evidence, translated: they did their job sloppily. Again, unscrupulous prosecutors are duly "rewarded" with cards.
 
When the Constitutional Court rules that an act is unconstitutional, or when a lawyer is proven to publicly support that unconstitutional act (just remember how many lawyers publicly supported the unconstitutional naming of a Ljubljana street after a former YU president), this should be considered the worst blunder of the lawyers involved, as it demonstrates that these lawyers do not even know the fundamental act of their own country - the Constitution. It is downright horrifying to think that such "qualified" lawyers could ever climb to a position where they have the power to rule in law! The state has no power to annul academic degrees, but it can annul the state (a.k.a. judicial) examination of lawyers so incriminated.