1The evaluation of the magistrate shall be made referring to the following levels:

a‘Excellent’: in case of an ethical and professional performance of very good qualities;

bVery good’: in case of an above average ethical and professional performance

c‘Good’: in case of an average ethical and professional performance;

ç‘Acceptable’: in case of a below average ethical and professional performance;

d‘Incapable’: in case of a poor ethical and/or professional performance.

2The general evaluation “excellent” is made only if the magistrate is assessed “excellent” for all four criteria.

3The general evaluation “very good” is made only in those cases where the magistrate is evaluated “very good” for three criteria, and “good” for the remaining one and, always, if the chairperson did not evaluate the magistrate overall as ‘inacceptable’. In any case the criterion of ‘judicial’ or ‘prosecutorial capacity’ and ‘ethics and commitment to judicial or prosecutorial values’ has to be evaluated ‘very good’.

4The general evaluation ‘good’ is awarded if the skills of the magistrates are evaluated ‘good’ for two criteria and ‘acceptable’ with regard to the remaining ones. The same rule applies even for the equalization of the evaluation of criteria between the grades ‘acceptable’ and ’incapable’ unless paragraph 3 of this Article provides otherwise. In any case the criterion of ‘judicial’ or ‘prosecutorial capacity’ and ‘ethics and commitment to judicial or prosecutorial values’ has to be evaluated as at least ‘very good’.

5The general evaluation “incapable” is made in the following cases:

aif the magistrate is assessed “incapable” in at least three criteria;

bif the magistrate is assessed “incapable” in regard to the criteria of ‘judicial’ or ‘prosecutorial professional skills’ and ‘ethics and commitment to judicial or prosecutorial values’ and not more than “good” with regard to the other two criteria.