Strasbourg, 26 April / avril 2017
CEPEJ-GT-EVAL(2015)17rev1
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
Commission européenne pour l’efficacité de la justice
(CEPEJ)
Working Group on the evaluation of judicial systems
Groupe de travail sur l’évaluation des systèmes judiciaires
(CEPEJ-GT-EVAL)
DATA QUALITY CHECK CONTROL PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPES DU CONTROLE DE QUALITE DES DONNEES
DATA QUALITY CHECK CONTROL PRINCIPLES /
PRINCIPES DU CONTROLE DE QUALITE DES DONNEES
DATA QUALITY CHECK CONTROL PRINCIPLES /
PRINCIPES DU CONTROLE DE QUALITE DES DONNEES
· Checking data variations that exceed +/- ….%. The new data collection system (CEPEJ-COLLECT) will warn the user when variations are too significant compared to the previous cycle. He/she will have to either modify the data or justify it providing a comment. / Vérifier les variations de données à +/- …. %. Le nouveau système de collecte de données (CEPEJ-COLLECT) avertira l'utilisateur si des variations sont trop importantes par rapport au cycle précédent. Il devra soit modifier sa donnée, soit la justifier par un commentaire.
· Checking discrepancies between cycles regarding qualitative data (for example discrepancies regarding yes/no questions). / Vérifier les différences entre les cycles concernant les données qualitatives (par exemple les différences de réponses oui/non).
· Checking variations between NA/NAP/a data (quantitative or qualitative) / Vérifier les variations entre NA/NAP/une donnée (quantitative ou qualitative).
-
· Taking into account the difference between NA/NAP/0/empty cell: / Faire la différence entre NA/NAP/0/cellules vides :
§ NA : Not available, à savoir non disponible
§ NAP : Not applicable, c’est-à-dire sans objet
· Checking sums: totals should equal the sum of subcategories. There are exceptions: / Vérifier les sommes : la somme indiquée (total) doit correspondre à la somme des sous catégories. Des exceptions existent :
§ For instance, if one or more answers are NA (not available), the total cannot be equal to the sum of the other categories for which the answers are quantitative data. / Ainsi, si une ou plusieurs réponses sont indiquées NA (not available), le total ne peut pas être égal à la somme des autres catégories dont la réponse est une donnée chiffrée.
§ if one answer is NA, the total will necessarily be NA / si une réponse est NA, le total sera obligatoirement NA ;
§ if several answers are NA, the total can be a quantitative data (which will necessarily be greater to the sum of the quantitative data of the different categories) / si plusieurs réponses sont indiquées NA, le total peut être une donnée chiffrée (qui sera forcément supérieure à la somme des données chiffrées des différentes catégories) ;
§ on the other hand, if one or more answers are NAP (not applicable), they do not impact on the total which can be equal to the sum of the quantitative data / en revanche, si une ou plusieurs réponses sont indiquées NAP (not applicable), elle(s) n’affecte(nt) pas le total qui peut correspondre à la somme des données chiffrées.
· As regards questions 91-97-99-101, checking that the data indicated on 31/12 of a given year will be the same than the data indicated on 1/1 of the following year / Vérifier pour les questions 91-97-99-101 que les données au 31/12 d’une année soient les mêmes que celles au 1/1 de l’année suivante.
· Checking horizontal and vertical consistency of data when necessary / Vérifier la cohérence verticale/horizontale des données si nécessaire.
EXAMPLES OF QUALITY CHECK / EXEMPLES DE CONTROLE DE QUALITE
Sum of subcategories when 1 answer is NA / Somme des sous catégories quand 1 réponse est NA :
|
In principle, for all cases (pending cases on 1st January, incoming cases, resolved cases, pending cases on 31 December):
- Total of non-criminal cases cannot be equal to the sum of the sub categories 1+2+4 due to the NA answer (in category 3);
- Total of non-contentious cases (category 2) cannot be equal to the sum of subcategories 2.1 + 2.2 due to the NA answer (in category 2.3);
- Total of registry cases (category 2.2) cannot be equal to the sum of subcategories 2.2.1+2.2.2 due to the NA answer (in category 2.2.3).
/ En principe, pour toutes les catégories (affaires pendantes au 1er janvier, nouvelles affaires, affaires terminées, affaires pendantes au 31 décembre) :
- le total des affaires autres que pénales ne peut pas être égal à la somme des sous catégories 1+2+4 en raison de la présence d’une réponse NA (dans la catégorie 3) ;
- le total des affaires non contentieuses (catégorie 2) ne peut pas être égal à la somme des sous catégories 2.1+2.2 en raison de la présence d’une réponse NA (dans la catégorie 2.3) ;
- le total des affaires liées aux registres (catégorie 2.2) ne peut pas être égal à la somme des sous catégories 2.2.1+2.2.2 en raison de la présence d’une réponse NA (dans la catégorie 2.2.3).
Sum of subcategories / several NA answers / Somme des sous catégories/ plusieurs NA :
In principle, if several answers indicate NA, the total cannot equal the sum of subcategories. This total must be NA - or a numeric value greater than the sum of the subcategories.
En principe, en présence de plusieurs réponses NA, le total ne peut pas être égal à la somme des sous catégories. Ce total doit être NA ou être une valeur numérique supérieure à la somme des sous catégories.
Sum of subcategories / NAP / Somme des sous catégories / NAP :
The answer NAP indicates that this part of the budget regarding investments in new buildings does not exist. Therefore, in the table above, the sum of the subcategories equals the sum indicated in the total.
La réponse NAP indique que cette part de budget concernant l'investissement dans de nouveaux bâtiments n’existe pas. Par conséquent, dans le tableau ci-dessus, la somme des sous catégories est égale à la somme indiquée en total.
Horizontal consistency / Cohérence horizontale
The consistency of the horizontal categories means that:
(Pending cases on 1 January of the reference year + Incoming cases) - Resolved cases = Pending cases on 31 December of the reference year.
/ La cohérence horizontale des catégories signifie que :
(Affaires pendantes au 1er janvier de l'année de référence + Affaires nouvelles) – Affaires résolues = Affaires pendantes au 31 décembre de l'année de référence
Example of question 101: / Exemple de la question 101 :
|
In the example above, for the first line regarding "litigious divorce cases", the following may be calculated:
(36 349 + 50 604) – 47 860 = 39 093 (and not 37 874 as it is mentioned in the table).
The same may be observed for the categories "employment dismissal cases" and "insolvency cases".
- The number of pending cases concerning employment dismissal on 31 dec 2014 = 67 021 (instead of 78 820)
- The number of pending cases concerning insolvency on 31 dec 2014 = 31 984 (instead of 32 356)
/ Dans l'exemple, ci-dessus, pour la première ligne concernant les affaires de divorces contentieux, le calcul suivant peut être réalisé :
(36 349 + 50 604) – 47 860 = 39 093 (et non 37 874 tel que renseigné dans le tableau).
La même observation peut être effectuée concernant les catégories d'affaires de licenciements et de faillites.
- Le nombre d'affaires pendantes de licenciements au 31 décembre 2014 = 67 021 (au lieu de 78 820)
- Le nombre d'affaires pendantes de faillites au 31 décembre 2014 = 31 984 (au lieu de 32 356)
Examples of long and detailed comments
Country: Austria
Question: 8.1 (methodology of calculation of court fees):
|
Comment provided for the 2012 and 2014 exercises |
“Court fees in Austrian proceedings concerning civil and commercial litigation under the civil procedure code (Zivilprozessordnung – ZPO) depend mostly on the value under dispute between the parties of the proceedings. The amount of the fees is laid down in a list or tariff which forms part of our Gerichtsgebührengesetz (GGG). This Act on court fees also specifies the correct way of calculating these costs (in particular the calculation of the assessment basis for the value under dispute).
According to § 14 GGG the assessment basis for the fees of a given case of litigation is the value under dispute (“Streitwert”) according to §§ 54 to 60 of the Jurisdiktionsnorm (JN) determining the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction and for the mode of appeal. §§ 15 to 18 GGG contain specific provisions regarding the value under dispute for specific cases - for example for actions concerning properties or special proceedings like renting.
As a rule court fees for civil lawsuits in Austria are lump sums which cover all costs of the given instance in the case irrespective of the complexity of the case and the concrete amount of expenditure necessary (“Pauschalgebühren”). The list of fees in the tariff is calculated on the average costs and expenditures to maintain the court and its personnel taking also into account the risk for State liability in such cases under the given value of the dispute and social considerations (to allow effective access to justice also for small claims). In Austria the courts have to be maintained by court fees their costs are not provided for by general taxation”.
|
Comment provided for the 2012 exercise |
“The court fee according to the “Streitwert” is laid down in fee items (Tarifposten – TP) 1 to 3 of the tariff appended to the GGG (TP 1 for cases of first instance, TP 2 for the second instance and TP 3 for litigation cases before the Supreme Court). If there are more than two parties to the case a percentage is added to these fees according to § 19a GGG. As can be derived from this tariff the charge for a proceeding concerning two parties - e.g. - about a value of 7.000 € is 285 € for the first instance (TP 1 GGG), 518 € for the second instance (TP 2 GGG) and 648 € for the Supreme Court (TP 3 GGG). The court fees for other values can be calculated from the lists respectively.
In cases where there are several claimants or defendants a surcharge has to be paid according to § 19a GGG (of 10 percent for the third party and 5 percent for any further party to the proceedings)”.
|
Comment provided for the 2014 exercise |
“The court fee according to the “Streitwert” is laid down in fee items (Tarifposten – TP) 1 to 3 of the tariff appended to the GGG (TP 1 for cases of first instance, TP 2 for the second instance and TP 3 for litigation cases before the Supreme Court). If there are more than two parties to the case a percentage is added to these fees according to § 19a GGG (In cases where there are several claimants or defendants a surcharge has to be paid according to § 19a GGG (of 10 percent for the third party and 5 percent for any further party to the proceedings)). As can be derived from this tariff the charge for a proceeding concerning two parties - e.g. - about a value of 7.000 € is 299 € for the first instance (TP 1 GGG), 544 € for the second instance (TP 2 GGG) and 681 € for the Supreme Court (TP 3 GGG). The court fees for other values can be calculated from the lists respectively”.
Proposal of a general comment containing the core information
|
Austria, Question 8.1 |
|
According to the Civil Procedure Code, court fees related to civil and commercial litigation depend mostly on the value under dispute between the parties of the proceedings. The amount is laid down in a list of tariff contented in the Court Fee Act. The latter also specifies the correct way of calculating these costs (in particular the calculation of the assessment basis for the value under dispute). As a rule, court fees for civil lawsuits are lump sums which cover all costs of the given instance in the case irrespective of its complexity and the concrete amount of expenditure. They are calculated on the average costs and expenditures necessary to maintain the court and its personnel, taking also into account the risk of State liability in such cases under the given value of the dispute and social considerations (to allow effective access to justice also for small claims). In Austria, courts have to be maintained by court fees and not by means of general taxation. |
Country: Estonia
Question: 168 (ADR)
|
Comment provided for the 2012 exercise |
“All the answers given in this chapter regarding the mediation procedure is called “conciliation” according to the translations of Estonian procedural laws. However, the content of Estonian 'conciliation' corresponds more to the definition of “judicial mediation” given in the explanatory note.
It is very difficult to answer to the questions regarding mediation because of the different interpretations of the legal terms as well as differences in legal systems. In Estonia, a system of conciliation for civil cases was created in 2010. It is officially translated as 'conciliation' but it rather corresponds to the 'mediation' defined in the explanatory note of CEPEJ. This mediation (conciliation) can be applied only in exceptional cases without the involvement of the court (e.g settlement agreement that concerns a property claim and is reached between the parties as a result of conciliation proceedings conducted by a sworn lawyer or a notary has an enforcable title without the involvement of the court only when it is authenticated by a notary at the request of the parties).
In addition to the non-judicial mediation (family cases), conciliation (conciliation proceedings in civil, administrative and criminal casese) and arbitration (labour disputes committee, consumer disputes committee, lease committee etc) there is an institution of “Riiklik Lepitaja” that could be translated as Public Conciliator. Public Conciliator is appointed to office by the Government to prevent and to resolve collective labour disputes. Public Conciliator appoints regional conciliators for minor collective labour disputes.
In civil proceedings, mediation procedure usually needs the consent of the parties but the court may order the parties to participate in the mediation proceeding if it is necessary in the interests of adjudication of the matter, considering the circumstances of the case and the process of the proceedings. A mediator can be a person whom the parties have entrusted the task of carrying out the mediation or a sworn lawyer, a notary or a mediation body of the government or a local authority. ´The judge is not a mediator but the role of the judge is very important in the mediation. The judge has to take all possible measures to settle a matter by a compromise or in another manner by agreement of the parties. For such purpose, the court may, among other, present a draft of a compromise contract to the parties or request that the parties appear before the court in person, or propose that the parties settle the dispute out of court or call upon the assistance of a mediator. In the family cases regarding the access to the child, the court directs the parties to the family mediators. In administrative court proceedings, the court may conduct mediation proceedings in which participants of the proceedings, with the assistance of a judge, settle their dispute by way of negotiations. The consent of the parties to the proceeding and the consent of the third parties is needed. For collective labour disputes there are public and local mediators (conciliators) who help the parties to labour disputes reach mutually satisfactory resolutions. The public and local mediators are impartial experts appointed to office by the Government of the Republic. In criminal proceedings a Prosecutor's Office or court may send a suspect or accused and the victim to mediation proceedings. The consent of the suspect or accused and the victim is necessary. The provision of mediation service is ensured by the Social Insurance Board (government authority under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Social Affairs) and mediation is carried out by victim support workers who have received relevant training. Comment for Q 166 - As explained, the mediation procedure differ significantly in civil, criminal and administrative court proceedings and no profession of accredited or registered mediators exists.
mail 9/1/14: Q 164: 'The differences regarding judicial mediation in administrative cases are related to the fact that in 2012 new Code of Administrative Court Procedure entered into force and it regulates the judicial mediation as described in the comment G.1.
Regarding the differences in other categories, the new answers specify the previous answers.
In criminal cases mediators are not privet but public authorities (victim support workers of the Social Insurance Board, a government authority under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Social Affairs). This has been so from 2007.
In civil, commercial, family and employment dismissal cases the mediator can be privet (a person whom the parties have entrusted the task of carrying out the mediation, a lawyer, in family cases also a family mediator) but it can also be public authority because the parties can entrust the task of carrying out the mediation also to a notary or a mediation body of the government or a local authority.
To be clear, I give also the exact wording of the article 2 of the Conciliation Act that governs conciliation (mediation) proceeding in civil matters:
For the purposes of this Act, a conciliator is:
1) a natural person whom the parties have entrusted the task of carrying out the activity described in section 1(2) of this Act. A conciliator may act through a legal person, being employed by the legal person or holding a contract of another type of with the legal person;
2) a sworn advocate in the case specified in section 17 of this Act;
3) a notary in the case specified in section 16 of this Act;
4) in the cases provided by law, a conciliation body of the government or a local authority.”
|
Comment provided for the 2013 exercise |
“In Estonia, a system of conciliation for civil cases was created in 2010. It is officially translated as 'conciliation' but it rather corresponds to the 'mediation' defined in the explanatory note of CEPEJ. In exceptional cases, this mediation (conciliation) can be applied without the involvement of the court (e.g settlement agreement that concerns a property claim and is reached between the parties as a result of conciliation proceedings conducted by a sworn lawyer or a notary has an enforceable title without the involvement of the court only when it is authenticated by a notary at the request of the parties).
In addition to the non-judicial mediation (family cases), conciliation (conciliation proceedings in civil, administrative and criminal cases) and arbitration (labour disputes committee, consumer disputes committee, lease committee etc) there is an institution of “Riiklik Lepitaja” that could be translated as Public Conciliator. Public Conciliator is appointed to office by the Government to prevent and to resolve collective labour disputes. Public Conciliator appoints regional conciliators for minor collective labour disputes.
In civil proceedings, mediation procedure usually needs the consent of the parties but the court may order the parties to participate in the mediation proceeding if it is necessary in the interests of adjudication of the matter, considering the circumstances of the case and the process of the proceedings. A mediator can be a person whom the parties have entrusted the task of carrying out the mediation or a sworn lawyer, a notary or a mediation body of the government or a local authority. The judge is not a mediator but the role of the judge is very important in the mediation. The judge has to take all possible measures to settle a matter by a compromise or in another manner by agreement of the parties. For such purpose, the court may, among other, present a draft of a compromise contract to the parties or request that the parties appear before the court in person, or propose that the parties settle the dispute out of court or call upon the assistance of a mediator. In the family cases regarding the access to the child, the court directs the parties to the family mediators. For collective labour disputes there are public and local mediators (conciliators) who help the parties to labour disputes reach mutually satisfactory resolutions. The public and local mediators are impartial experts appointed to office by the Government of the Republic.
In administrative court proceedings, the court may conduct mediation proceedings in which participants of the proceedings, with the assistance of a judge, settle their dispute by way of negotiations. The consent of the parties to the proceeding and the consent of the third parties is needed.
In criminal proceedings a Prosecutor's Office or court may send a suspect or accused and the victim to conciliation proceeding with the objective of achieving conciliation and remedying of the damage caused by the criminal offence The consent of the suspect or accused and the victim is necessary. The provision of mediation service is ensured by the Social Insurance Board (government authority under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Social Affairs) and mediation is carried out by victim support workers who have received relevant training”.
|
No comment provided for the 2014 exercise |
Proposal of comment containing the core information (the lack of information with regard to the 2014 exercise prevent from concluding to the general character of the comment)
|
Estonia, Question 168 |
|
In the ambit of the 2012 and 2013 exercises, several clarifications have been provided. Despite the fact that the Estonian legislation refers to the term of “conciliation” and according to the CEPEJ explanatory note, it is more accurate to talk about “judicial mediation”. In civil matters, it is rare to resort to mediation (conciliation) without the involvement of a court (property claims for example). The parties’ consent is usually required for resorting to mediation, but the latter can be ordered by the court under certain conditions. A mediator can be a person whom the parties have entrusted the task of carrying out the mediation or a sworn lawyer, a notary or a mediation body of the government or a local authority. The judge is not a mediator but he/she has to take all possible measures to settle a matter by a compromise or in another manner through an agreement of the parties. For such purpose, the court may, among other, present a draft of a compromise contract to the parties or request that the parties appear before the court in person, or propose that the parties settle the dispute out of court or call upon the assistance of a mediator. In family cases regarding the access to the child, the court directs the parties to the family mediators. For collective labour disputes, public and local mediators (conciliators) – impartial experts appointed to office by the Government – help the parties to reach mutually satisfactory resolutions. In criminal matters a Prosecutor’s Office or court may suggest to resort to mediation, but the consent of the suspect/accused and the victim is necessary. The mediation service is entrusted by the Social Insurance Board (government authority under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Social Affairs) and is carried out by victim support workers who have received relevant training. In administrative matters, the court may conduct mediation proceedings in which parties, with the assistance of a judge, settle their dispute by way of negotiations. The consent of the parties as well as the consent of the third parties are needed. In addition to the non-judicial mediation (family cases), conciliation (conciliation proceedings in civil, administrative and criminal cases) and arbitration (labour disputes committee, consumer disputes committee, lease committee etc.) there is an institution of Public Conciliator (Riiklik Lepitaja). The latter is appointed to office by the Government to prevent and to resolve collective labour disputes. He/she appoints regional conciliators for minor collective labour disputes. |
Country: Finland
Question: 38 (surveys)
|
Comment provided for the 2010 exercise |
“Päivi Honkatukia: National Research Institute Research Report No. 252
of Legal Policy Helsinki 2011, Victims in the criminal process: vulnerability, services and treatment
Marjukka Lasola (ed.) National Research Institute of Legal Policy publication
Law and the Citizen 2009 – A Survey on Legal Institutions and Access to Justice
no. 244
Marjukka Litmala (ed.): Oikeusolot 2004, National Research Institute of Legal Policy publication, 210 / 2004. (the title translated: Judicial conditions)
Hannu Niskanen & Timo Ahonen & Ahti Laitinen: Suomalaisten luottamus tuomioistuimiin, The University of Turku 1999 (the title translated: Trust in courts)”.
|
Comment provided for the 2012 exercise |
“Kaijus Ervasti & Mikko Aaltonen: Osapuolten kokemuksia siviilioikeudenkäynneistä
(title translated: Experiences of participants in civil proceedings), National Research Institute of Legal Policy Research Communications 118, Helsinki 2013
2. Antti Rissanen & Kati Rantala: Legal adi in Finland - Focused Study on Clientele and Cases, National Research Institute of Legal Policy Research Communications 117, Helsinki 2013
3. Venla Salmi: Nuorten rikoskäyttäytyminen ja uhrikokemukset (the title translated: Juvenile criminal behaviour and victims' experiences), National Research Institute of Legal Policy Research Communications 113, Helsinki 2012
4. Rebecca Kadoch: The Publicity of Trials in General Courts, National Research Institute of Legal Policy Research Communications 112, Helsinki 2012
5. Virve-Maria de Godzinsky: Taking a child into care - Research of decision making in administrative courts, National Research Institute of Legal Policy Research Report No. 260, Helsinki 2012
6. Päivi Honkatukia: Victims in the criminal process: vulnerability, services and treatment, National Research Institute of Legal Policy Research Report No. 252
Helsinki 2011
7. Marjukka Lasola (ed.) National Research Institute of Legal Policy publication
Law and the Citizen 2009 – A Survey on Legal Institutions and Access to Justice
no. 244
8. Marjukka Litmala (ed.): Oikeusolot 2004 (the title translated: Judicial conditions), National Research Institute of Legal Policy publication, 210 / 2004.
9. Hannu Niskanen & Timo Ahonen & Ahti Laitinen: Suomalaisten luottamus tuomioistuimiin (the title translated: Trust in courts), The University of Turku 1999”
|
Comment provided for the 2013 exercise |
“1. Heini Kainulainen & Elsa Saarikkomäki: Rikosprosessi väkivaltarikosten uhrien näkökulmasta (title translated: Criminal proceedings - perspective of victim of the violence) National Research Institute of Legal Policy, Research Communications 126, Helsinki 2014
2. Virve-Maria de Godzinsky: Lapsen etu ja osallisuus hallinto-oikeuksien päätöksissä (title translated: Child's interest and involvement in decisions made by administrative courts) National Research Institute of Legal Policy, Research Report No 267, Helsinki 2014
3. Antti Rissanen & Marjukka Lasola: Julkinen oikeusapu: Yksityisten avustajien toiminta (title translated: Legal aid: Acting of private attorneys) National Research Institute of Legal Policy, Research Communications 124, Helsinki 2014
4. Virve-Maria de Godzinsky & Mikko Aaltonen: Koettu oikeudenmukaisuus hallintoprosessissa (title translated: Perceived justice in administrative proceedings) National Research Institute of Legal Policy, Research Communications 121, Helsinki 2013
5. Kaijus Ervasti & Mikko Aaltonen: Osapuolten kokemuksia siviilioikeudenkäynneistä (title translated; Experiences of participantsin civil proceedings) National Research Institute of Legal Policy, Research Communications 118, Helsinki 2013
6. Antti Rissanen & Kati Rantala: Legal aid in Finland - Focused Study on Clientele and Cases, National Research Institute of Legal Policy, Research Communications 117, Helsinki 2012
7. Venla Salmi: Nuorten rikoskäyttäytyminen ja uhrikokemukset (title translated: Juvenile criminal behaviour and victims' experiences), National Research Institute of Legal Policy, Research Communications 113, Helsinki 2012
8. Rebecca Kadoch: the publicity on Trials in General Courts, National Research Institute of Legal Policy, Research Communications 112, Helsinki 2012
9. Virve.Maria de Godzinsky: Taking a child into care - Research of decision making in administrative courts, National Research Institute of Legal Policy, Research Report No 260, Helsinki 2012
10. Päivi Honkatukia: National Research Institute Research Report No. 252 of Legal Policy Helsinki 2011, Victims in the criminal process: vulnerability, services and treatment
11. Marjukka Lasola (ed.) National Research Institute of Legal Policy publication Law and the Citizen 2009 – A Survey on Legal Institutions and Access to Justice no. 244
12. Hannu Niskanen & Timo Ahonen & Ahti Laitinen: Suomalaisten luottamus
tuomioistuimiin, The University of Turku 1999 (the title translated: Trust in courts)”.
|
Comment provided for the 2014 exercise |
“Institute of Criminology and Legal Policy, formerly National Research Institute of Legal Policy, is a research institute at the University of Helsinki, specialising in research and monitoring of crime and legal policy in Finland. As specified in the law on Institute of Criminology and Legal Policy (13/2004), the tasks of the research institute are:
- to practice independent research on legal policy, with regard to needs of the ministry of justice and society at large;
- to monitor legal policy and crime, to analyze their trends;
- to maintain research databases that are necessary for the research specified in the law.
The institute became part of the Faculty of Social Sciences and the Department of Department of Social Research in January 1 2015. It is the only academic research unit in Finland that specialises in research on crime and legal policy.
Some recent surveys:
- Kyselytutkimus vankeusvangeille sääntelyn toimivuudesta ja vankilaoloista (title translated: Survey to prisoners about the functionality of regulation and the conditions in prison)
Katsauksia 6/2015 - Liimatainen, Anu, Rantala, Kati, Paasonen, Jyri & Mäkipää, Leena
- Rikosprosessi väkivaltarikosten uhrien näkökulmasta. (title translated: Criminal procedure from the point of view of victims in violent crimes) Kainulainen, H. & Saarikkomäki, E. 2014 National Research Institute of Legal Policy. (Oikeuspoliittisen tutkimuslaitoksen tutkimustiedonantoja; vol. 126)
- Virve-Maria de Godzinsky & Mikko Aaltonen: KOETTU OIKEUDENMUKAISUUS HALLINTOPROSESSISSA. Helsinki 2013. Oikeuspoliittisen tutkimuslaitoksen tutkimustiedonantoja 121. National Research Institute of Legal Policy. Research Communications. (title translated: Perceived fairness of trial in administrative matters)
- Virve-Maria de Godzinsky: Lapsen etu ja osallisuus hallinto-oikeuksien päätöksissä (title translated: The Best Interest Of The Child And The Child’s Right To Participate In Administrative Court Proceedings), Helsinki 2014.
- Anu Liimatainen & Leena Mäkipää & Kati Rantala: Kysely vankiloiden ja arviointikeskusten henkilökunnalle, OPTL Verkkokatsauksia 42/2014. (title translated: Survey to the personnel of prisons and assessment centers)
- Antti Rissanen & Marjukka Lasola: Julkinen oikeusapu: Yksityisten avustajien toiminta, Helsinki 2014. (title translated: Public legal aid: Activities of advocates and other private sector legal advisers)”.
Proposal of comment containing the core information and provided exclusively in English
|
Finland, Question 38 |
|
The Institute of Criminology and Legal Policy, formerly National Research Institute of Legal Policy, is a research institute at the University of Helsinki and as such the only academic research unit in Finland that specialises in research and monitoring of crime and legal policy in Finland. Its responsibilities are pinpointed in a specific law and subsume the following tasks: - practicing independent research on legal policy, with regard to needs of the Ministry of Justice and society at large; - monitoring legal policy and crime and analyzing their trends; - maintaining research databases that are necessary for the research specified in the law. In the frame of the Institute of Criminology and Legal Policy, numerous studies have been carried out. The latter are dedicated to various issues, such as: “Survey to prisoners about the functionality of regulation and the conditions in prison” (2015); “Criminal procedure from the point of view of victims in violent crimes” (2014); “Legal aid: acting of private attorneys” (2014); “The best interest of the child and the child’s right to participate in administrative court proceedings” (2014); “Survey to the personnel of prisons and assessment centers” (2014); “Public legal aid: activities of advocates and other private sector legal advisers” (2014); “Perceived fairness of trial in administrative matters” (2013); “Experiences of participants in civil proceedings” (2013); “Clientele and Cases” (2013); “Juvenile criminal behaviour and victims’ experiences” (2012); “The publicity of trials in general courts” (2012); “Taking a child into care - research of decision making in administrative courts” (2012); “Victims in the criminal process: vulnerability, services and treatment” (2011); “Legal institutions and access to justice” (2009); “Judicial conditions” (2004). Other universities can also organize surveys, as for example the University of Turku which published in 1999 a research pertaining to the trust in courts. |
Examples of comments provided on the occasion of previous exercises but which are still relevant owing to their general character
Country: Czech Republic
Question: 178 (authority responsible for supervising and monitoring the enforcement agent’s activity)
|
Comment provided for the 2010 and 2012 exercises |
“State supervision over private executors is carried out by the Ministry of Justice. The Chamber of Executors supervises activities of private executors and their management of private’s offices. A bailiff (an employee of the court) is governed by the judge in his activities”.
Following an exchange of e-mails with the national correspondent, we received the confirmation that the comment provided in respect of the 2010 and 2012 exercises, applies also to the present evaluation.
Country: Italy
Questions: 6 and 7 (annual public budget allocated to the functioning of courts)
|
Comment provided for the 2012 exercise |
“Due to the structure of the Italian judicial system, the ministry of justice has one single budget which does not distinguish between the budget allocated to the courts, the budget allocated to the public prosecution services and the one allocated to the administration itself. The figures provided in this chapter are the result of a re-classification of the budget statements which takes into consideration several criteria”.
Following an exchange of e-mails with the national correspondent, we received the confirmation that the comment provided in respect of the 2012 exercise, can safely be extended to the 2010, 2013 and 2014 evaluation cycles.