CEPEJ-DEF(2018)1

Strasbourg, 8 January 2018         

EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE

(CEPEJ)

Ad hoc CEPEJ Working Group entrusted with the harmonisation of the definitions used by CEPEJ

1^st meeting

12 September 2017

MEETING REPORT

Document prepared by the Secretariat
Directorate General I – Human Rights and Rule of Law

A.   Introduction

1.    The ad hoc Working group entrusted with the harmonisation of the definitions used by the CEPEJ held its 1st meeting on 12 September 2017, in Dublin (Ireland) under the presidency of Laetitia BRUNIN (France).

2.     The agenda and the list of participants appear respectively in appendices I and II to this report.

B.   Context and tasks

3.    At its 28th plenary meeting (6-7 December 2016), the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) instructed its working groups to continue their consultation with a view to draft a compilation of the definitions used in the work of the CEPEJ.

4.    An ad hoc working group composed of a representative of each CEPEJ working group (except the Mediation working group, set up too recently) was created to :

·         compile all definitions already used by the CEPEJ, the CEPEJ Working Groups and the experts working on CEPEJ documents;

·         analyse the relevance of these definitions;

·         check if those definitions are not in contradiction and are always clear;

·         harmonise accordingly these definitions;

·         prepare a document to be used in all CEPEJ work in the future.

C.   Harmonisation of definitions

5.    On the basis of a working document identifying all the definitions used by the CEPEJ and their sources prepared by the Secretariat (Document CEPEJ (2017)9prov), the ad hoc working group began to analyse the numerous definitions, sometimes identifying certain inconsistencies or reformulating certain definitions to clarify them. This work is contained in the document CEPEJ (2017)9prov3 (See appendix III of this report).

6.    The Group decided to propose to the CEPEJ that the final version of this document would be “the glossary of the CEPEJ”. This glossary will be submitted to the working groups for consultation before its submission to the CEPEJ in order for its adoption.

D.   Timetable 

7.     A second meeting to continue the work (in English and French) is scheduled for 30 January 2018 in Cologne, Germany. A third meeting could be necessary to achieve the work of harmonization.

Annex I : Agenda / Ordre du jour

1.            Opening of the meeting

2.            Proposed working method to be used during the meeting :

a.            Identification of the list of terms for which exist 2 or more definitions and decision on a “CEPEJ definition” for each of these terms

Management/Indicator definitions

Backlog/Total backlog indicator/Pending cases/pending proceedings, Incoming cases, Resolved cases, Case turnover ratio, Clearance rate, Disposition time, Efficiency rate, Implemented budget

Legal and general definitions

Access to justice, Courts of general jurisdiction, Lawyers, Professional judges, Non judge staff, Rechtspfleger, Full time equivalent, Gross salary/salaries, Misdemeanours/minor offences

b.            Other definitions which may be discussed

Examination of the content and the relevance of the common CEPEJ definitions:

For exemple: Administrative law cases, Average/Median

Technical definitions:

For exemple, IT definitions as: Business intelligence, Computerization, Electronic case management system (see also general definition of case management system)

c.            Identification of the definitions which will appear in a future CEPEJ Glossary

Definitions to delete from the documents, for exemple: Teaching, Protected title, Efficient management of resources

d.            Follow-up and timetable of the work of this ad hoc group

e.            Other items

Annex II : List of Participants / Liste des participants

Laetitia BRUNIN, Adjointe à la Sous-Directrice de la statistique et des études, Secrétariat général, Ministère de la justice, Paris, FRANCE

e-mail : [email protected]

Simone KREβ, Vice-President, Landgericht Köln, Luxemburger Str. 101, 50939 Köln, GERMANY, Tel: +49 221 477 2712, Tel: +49 221 477 2700,

e-mail : [email protected]

Joao ARSENIO DE OLIVEIRA, Head of Department, International Affairs Department, Directorate General for Justice Policy, Ministry of Justice, Av. D. Joao II, n° 1.08.01 E, Torre H, Pisos 2/3, 1990-097 Lisbon, PORTUGAL, Tel: + 351 21 792 40 30,

e-mail: [email protected]

Noel RUBOTHAM, Head of Reform and Development, Courts Service, Green Street Courthouse, Halston Street, Dublin, IRELAND, Tel: +353 1 88 86 761,

e-mail: [email protected]

Marco FABRI, Director, Research Institute on Judicial Systems, National Research Council (IRSIG-CNR), Via Zamboni 26, 40126 Bologna, ITALY, Tel: +39 051 237 044, e-mail: [email protected]

COUNCIL OF EUROPE / CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE

Secretariat

Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law (DG I)

Division for the Independence and Efficiency of Justice/

Direction Générale des Droits de l’Homme et Etat de droit (DG I)

Division pour l’indépendance et l’efficacité de la justice

E-mail: [email protected]

Muriel DECOT, Co-Secretary of the CEPEJ / Co-secrétaire de la CEPEJ, Tél: +33 (0)3 90 21 44 55, e-mail : [email protected]

Christel SCHURRER, Secretary of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL / Secrétaire du CEPEJ-GT-EVAL, Tél : +33 (0)3 90 21 56 97, e-mail: [email protected]

Annex III : Working document: CEPEJ (2017) 9Prov3

CEPEJ(2017)9 PROV 3

Strasbourg, 8 December 2017      

EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE

(CEPEJ)

Ad hoc CEPEJ Working Group entrusted with the harmonisation of the definitions used by CEPEJ

Documents

·          CEPEJ(2007)13 - Guidelines for a better implementation of the existing recommendation concerning mediation in penal matters ­- 10th Plenary meeting, 6/7 December 2007.

·          CEPEJ(2007)14 - Guidelines for a better implementation of the existing recommendation concerning family mediation and mediation in civil matters – 10^th Plenary meeting, 6/7 December 2007.

·          CEPEJ(2008)2 - Customer Satisfaction Surveys among Court Users – Checklist for Court Coaching, 11^th Plenary meeting, 2/3 July 2008.

·          CEPEJ(2008)11 - “CEPEJ Guidelines on judicial statistics (GOJUST)” - 12^th Plenary meeting, 10/11 December 2008.

·          CEPEJ(2014)14 – Guidelines on the role of court-appointed experts in judicial proceedings of Council of Europe’s Member States -  24^th Plenary meeting, 11/12 December 2014.

·          CEPEJ(2014)15 – Guidelines on the organization and accessibility of court premises - 24^th Plenary meeting, 11/12 December 2014.

·          CEPEJ(2014)16 - CEPEJ-SATURN – Revised Saturn Guidelines for judicial Time Management (2^nd revision), EUGMONT - 24^th Plenary meeting, 11/12 December 2014.

·          CEPEJ(2015)10 - Good practice guide on enforcement of judicial decisions – 26^th Plenary meeting, 10/11 December 2015.

·          European judicial systems, Efficiency and quality of justice, CEPEJ Studies No. 23, Edition 2016 (2014 data), 30 June/ 1^st July 2016.

·          CEPEJ(2016)5 - Towards European Timeframes for Judicial Proceedings - Implementation Guide – 28^th Plenary meeting, 6/7 December.

·          CEPEJ(2016)12 - Measuring the quality of justice – 28^th Plenary meeting, 6/7 December.

·          CEPEJ(2016)13 - Guidelines on how to drive change towards Cyberjustice, Stock-taking of tools deployed and summary of good practices - 28^th Plenary meeting, 6/7 December.

·          CEPEJ(2016)14 - Structural measures adopted by some Council of Europe member states to improve the functioning of civil and administrative justice. In addition to the effective domestic remedies required by Article 13 of the ECHR - Good practice guide - 28^th Plenary meeting, 6/7 December.

·          CEPEJ(2016)15 – Handbook for conducting satisfaction surveys aimed at court users in Council of Europe Member States - 28^th Plenary meeting, 6/7 December.

·          Handbook on European law relating to access to justice, Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe, January 2016,

·          CEPEJ(2017)5E – Explanatory Note scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems, IT Questions, 2016-2017 Cycle – 29^th Plenary meeting, 29 May 2017.

·          CEPEJ(2017)3 - Explanatory note to the Scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems - 29^th Plenary meeting, 19 June 2017.

DEFINITIONS

Access to justice

Source:

-       Resolution 2054 (2015) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, entitled “Equality and non-discrimination in the access to justice”, which considers that the broad concept of access to justice covers the various elements resulting in appropriate redress for the violation of a right, such as information on rights and procedures, legal aid, legal representation, legal standing or general access to courts.

-       CEPEJ (2016) 13 - Guidelines on how to drive change towards Cyberjustice, 1.1 11 p5.

This notion must be understood here in a broad sense, as it includes both ways of accessing the law (online information on one’s rights, publication of case law) and access to dispute settlement procedures (online granting of legal aid, referral to a court or mediation service). Access to justice is a notion frequently advanced by judicial systems to justify the use of digital tools, which, depending on the context, are intended to increase the amount of information or level of services available to court users or to lower the barriers (taken to mean the material and financial costs) to accessing existing services.

Source: Handbook on European law relating to access to justice, Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe, January 2016, p16.

According to international and European human rights law, the notion of access to justice obliges states to guarantee each individual’s right to go to court – or, in some circumstances, an alternative dispute resolution body – to obtain a remedy if it is found that the individual’s rights have been violated. It is thus also an enabling right that helps individuals enforce other rights.

Source: CEPEJ - Access to justice in Europe / CEPEJ studies No. 9 p13

It is all the legal and organisational factors affecting the availability and effectiveness of judicial services. Access to justice should enable society to deliver a maximum number of decisions at reasonable cost to the taxpayer, with quality a prime requirement. Access to justice must also give the individual user a quality decision at – a prime requirement – reasonable cost to him or her.

Administrative staff

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q52 p14.

They are not directly involved in the judicial assistance of a judge, but are responsible for administrative tasks (such as the registration of cases in a computer system, the supervision of the payment of court fees, administrative preparation of case files, archiving) and/or the management of the court (for example a head of the court secretary, head of the computer department of the court, financial director of a court, human resources manager, etc.).

Alternative measures to prosecution

Source: Opinion No.2 (2008) from the Consultative Council of European Prosecutors on "Alternatives to prosecution" p2

They are understood to mean measures which go together with final, temporary or conditional discontinuation of prosecution where an offence has been committed, that would otherwise render the perpetrator liable to a criminal sanction such as a suspended or unsuspended prison sentence or fine, together with ancillary penalties such as deprivation of certain rights.

Arbitration

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q163 p29.

Parties select an impartial third party, known as an arbitrator, whose (final) decision is binding. Parties can present evidence and testimonies before the arbitrators. Sometimes there are several arbitrators selected who work as acourt. Arbitration is most commonly used for the resolution of commercial disputes as it offers higher confidentiality.

Average (see also median)

Source: European judicial systems, Efficiency and quality of justice, CEPEJ Studies No. 23, Edition 2016 (2014 data), p10.

Oxford definition: The result obtained by adding several amounts together and then dividing the total by the number of amounts.

Give one example applicable to one CEPEJ subject (number of court presidents/3 countries), to distinguish from median (same example).

The average is sensitive to extreme values (too high or too low).

Backlog

Source: CEPEJ (2016)5 - Towards European Timeframes for Judicial Proceedings - Implementation Guide, Intro p3.

Pending cases which have not been resolved within an established timeframe.

For example, if the timeframe has been set at 24 months for all the civil proceedings, the backlog is the number of pending cases that are older than 24 months.

Bankruptcy (dictionnaire)

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q101, 101.1 and 102 p24.

Legal status of a person or an organisation who/which has been determined by law to be incapable of discharging their liabilities and has been divested of their unsecured assets for distribution amongst their unsecured creditors. Also refers to the proceedings in which those assets are realised for the benefit of the bankrupt debtor's creditors.

The data should include declarations of bankruptcy issued by a court as well as all bankruptcy-related matters (credit recovery, liquidation of assets, payment of creditors, etc.).

BUDGET

Budget approved

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, p3 and p7.

It is the budget that has been formally authorised by law (eg. by the Parliament or another competent public authority).

Budget implemented

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, p3 and p7.

Source: European judicial systems, Efficiency and quality of justice, CEPEJ Studies No. 23, Edition 2016 (2014 data), p18.

The actual expenditure incurred in the reference year.

Judicial system budget(for the CEPEJ exercice purpose)

Source: European judicial systems, Efficiency and quality of justice, CEPEJ Studies No. 23, Edition 2016 (2014 data), p17.

It is the budget allocated to the courts, the public prosecution services, and legal aid.

Whole justice system budget (for the CEPEJ exercice purpose)

The annual public budget allocated to the whole justice system should include, in particular the budget of the judicial systems (in accordance with the CEPEJ definition) and other elements like the budget for prison system, the budget for probation services, the budget for High councils for the judiciary, the budget for the Constitutional Court, the budget for the judicial management body, the budget for Advocacy State (i.e. the budget referring to a lawyer representing the State’s interests), the budget for enforcement services, the budget for notariat, the budget for forensic services, the budget for the judicial protection of juveniles (i.e. the budget referring to the youth protection, mainly the budget allocated to social workers and not the budget for juvenile courts), the budget for the functioning of the Ministry of Justice, the budget for refugees and asylum seekers services, the budget for immigration service or even the budget for some police services  (i.e. judicial police, prisoners’ transfer, security in courts, etc.).

CASE

Complex cases

Source: CEPEJ (2016)5 - Towards European Timeframes for Judicial Proceedings - Implementation Guide, 2. P5.

Cases which , by virtue of particular attributes (e.g. number of parties, volume of evidence, number and/or complexity of issues in  dispute), may require additional time for disposal beyond that which would be expected for ordinary cases within the case category concerned. For this reason, there is a 5%-10% Buffer only for very complex cases that are not supposed to be included in the Timeframes, which therefore address 90-95% of the court caseload. However, the cases within this Buffer zone should receive very special attention with a view to being brought within the Timeframe as soon as possible.

Normal cases

Source: CEPEJ (2016)5 - Towards European Timeframes for Judicial Proceedings - Implementation Guide, 2. P5.

They are usually the bulk of cases dealt with by the court. For the sake of simplicity, at this stage, the counting of the percentage of Priority cases has been included in the “Normal cases”. It goes without saying that each Member State or court can set its own specific Timeframe for these cases.

Priority cases

Source: CEPEJ (2016)5 - Towards European Timeframes for Judicial Proceedings - Implementation Guide, 2. P5.

They are supposed to be disposed as quickly as possible. Please refer to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, which has identified such “priority cases”.

CASE STATUS

Discontinued criminal cases

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q107, 108 and 109 p25.

They are cases received by the public prosecutor, which have not been brought before the court and for which no sanction or any other measure has been taken.

Incoming cases

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q91 to 109 p19.

Source : CEPEJ Guidelines (2014)16 Ep29.

Cases filed in the court concerned within a defined time period.

Note: any case which has previously been filed in and is remitted to the same instance level (for instance after an appeal ) should be considered as an incoming case.

Pending cases

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q91 to 109 p19.

Source: CEPEJ (2016)5 - Towards European Timeframes for Judicial Proceedings - Implementation Guide, Intro p3.

Source: CEPEJ (2016)12 - Measuring the quality of justice, p8

Cases that remain to be resolved by the court concerned at a given point in time (for example 1^st January).

Pending cases older than 2 years

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q91 to 109 p19.

Cases that at a given point in time (eg. on 31st December of the reference year) remain to be resolved after expiry of a period of 2 years from their filling in the court concerned.

Pending cases by age

Source: CEPEJ (2016)12 - Measuring the quality of justice, p11.

Cases that at a given point in time (eg. on 31st December of the reference year) remain to be resolved, grouped by reference to the length of time which has elapsed since their filing.

Resolved cases

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q91 to 109 p19.

Cases terminated in the court concerned  either through a decision by the court or through any procedural step (eg. a discontinuance of the case or a settlement) which ended the case.

 

Usually, this term is used in the Scheme for evaluating judicial systems by reference to a period of a year.

CASE TYPES

Administrative law cases (litigious or non-litigious)

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q91 to 109 p20.

They concern disputes between citizens and (local, regional or national) authorities, for instance: asylum refusals or refusals of construction permit applications. Administrative law cases are in some countries addressed by special administrative courts or tribunals, whilst in other countries they are handled by the ordinary civil courts.

Cases relating to asylum seekers

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q101, 101.1 and 102 p24.

(Refugee status under the 1951 Geneva Convention and the protocol of 1967^[1]): in this category are counted cases for which an appeal has been lodged or a decision of a judge has been issued against the decision whether or not to grant the refugee status to a person.

Civil law cases

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, p3.

They refer to other than criminal law cases and encompass all categories of civil dispute including, e.g.: contract and tort disputes,  consumer disputes, commercial disputes, family law cases, employment dismissal cases and administrative law cases.

Criminal law cases

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q91 to 109 p23.

Are considered here as criminal cases, all cases for which a penal sanction may be imposed by a judge on a finding of guilt, even if this sanction is foreseen, in some national systems, in an administrative code (e.g. fines or community service). Such offences may include, for example, minor offences involving anti-social behaviour, public nuisance or traffic offences.

General non-litigious civil (and commercial) cases

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q91 to 109 p20.

They concern for example uncontested payment orders, request for a change of name, non-contentious cases related to enforcement divorce cases with mutual consent (for some legal systems), etc. Are excluded from this category, non-contentious register cases and/or other cases.

Litigious cases

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q91 to 109 p19.

They are cases for which the judge decides the case.

Litigious civil (and commercial) cases

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q91 to 109 p20.

Il faudrait une vraie definition, pas seulement des exemples.

They are for instance litigious divorce cases or disputes regarding contracts. In some countries commercial cases are addressed by special commercial courts, whilst in other countries these cases are handled by ordinary (civil) courts. Bankruptcy proceedings must be understood as litigious proceedings. Despite the organisational differences between countries in this respect, all the information concerning civil and commercial cases should be included in the same figures. If appropriate, litigious civil (and commercial) cases do not include administrative law cases. Enforcement litigious cases (for example judicial appeal against deeds processed by a bailiff) are included in this category.

Litigious divorce case

Source:

-       Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q101, 101.1 and 102 p24.

-       CEPEJ (2014)16 - CEPEJ-SATURN – Revised Saturn Guidelines for judicial Time Management (2^nd revision), EUGMONT, p 11.

It is the dissolution of a marriage contract between two persons, following a judgment of a competent court.

Non-litigious cases

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q91 to 109 p19.

They are cases which are not brought to court or for which a registration is made by an individual

Small claim

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q45,45.1,45.2 p13.

It is a civil case where the financial value of the claim is relatively low.

Caseload (difference avec case flows?)

Source: CEPEJ (2016)5 - Towards European Timeframes for Judicial Proceedings - Implementation Guide, Intro p3.

It is the number of cases that a court, or a judge, has to deal with. It is usually the sum of pending cases plus incoming cases in a certain time

Case flows

Source: CEPEJ (2016)12 - Measuring the quality of justice, p8.

New cases, resolved cases and pending cases.

Case management system

Source: CEPEJ (2016) 13 - Guidelines on how to drive change towards Cyberjustice, 1.4.1 55 p24.

Generally refers to an automated application supporting the processing of cases in a court, including features such as case filing, case event scheduling, production of template orders and other documents, and capture, extraction and reporting of case flow data,  Case management systems are a key tool for court management and administration in monitoring the processing of cases and inallocating the resources needed to try cases according to case flow and backlog data, and are usually the main source of the statistical data available to courts, ministries and judicial councils.

Cyberjustice

Source: CEPEJ (2016) 13 - Guidelines on how to drive change towards Cyberjustice, Intro.2 p3

Describes technologically enabled access to justice, including on-line delivery of court services and dispute resolution, video-conferenced hearings etc.. The development and operation of software tools, so as to embrace all the current developments affecting the way in which justice is administered by harnessing the ICTs.

Used in preference to “e-justice”, which implies that the use of IT is a means of applying justice in the digital world, the term cyberjustice in fact refers to a body of literature which is now extensive and cross-disciplinary and has its origins in information theory. This literature points to the depth of the changes taking place in human organisations and activities that make use of information systems in order to better identify the challenges facing them. Cyberjustice is therefore broadly understood as grouping together all the situations in which the application of ICTs, at least, forms part of a dispute resolution process, whether in or out of court

Case Turnover ratio

Source: CEPEJ (2016)12 - Measuring the quality of justice, p9.

Ratio between  resolved cases and  pending cases at the end of period.

A CORRIGER

Source:

-        CEPEJ (2014)16 - CEPEJ-SATURN – Revised Saturn Guidelines for judicial Time Management (2^nd revision), EUGMONT, p 13.

-       CEPEJ (2008)11, “CEPEJ Guidelines on judicial statistics (GOJUST)”, 5.2 p 12.

Note: it shows how the court or judicial system is coping with the pending cases, regardless of their age.

Clearance Rate (CR)

Source: European judicial systems, Efficiency and quality of justice, CEPEJ Studies No. 23, Edition 2016 (2014 data), p185.

The ratio between resolved cases and incoming cases in a given period.

Source: CEPEJ (2016)12 - Measuring the quality of justice, p9.

Note: this indicator shows how the court or judicial system is coping with the in-flow of cases.

Source: CEPEJ (2008)11, “CEPEJ Guidelines on judicial statistics (GOJUST)”, 5.1 p 12.

Computerisation

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, p3 and p6, (categories included in the Annual public budget).

Autre definition  ou supprimer

Computerisation includes all the expenses for the installation, use and maintenance of computer systems (including the expenses paid to the technical staff).

Conciliation

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q163 p29.

A améliorer

The conciliator’s main goal is to conciliate, most of the time by seeking concessions. She/he can suggest to the parties proposals for the settlement of a dispute. Compared to a mediator, a conciliator has more power and is more proactive.

Court

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, p11.

It means a body established by law appointed to exercise the judicial power of the State in adjudicating on specific type(s) of civil disputes or trying persons accused of criminal offences within a specified administrative structure where one or several judge(s) is/are sitting, on a temporary or permanent basis.

Court annexed mediation

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q164 p29.

This is a particular kind of mediation, based on the American model of mediation and which takes place on foot of a referral made by a court , or under a court procedure, at the commencement or during the course of court proceedings. The mediation may be conducted by private mediators or by judges and court employees specially trained and accredited.

Courts of general jurisdiction

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q8 p7.

Courts which deal with civil and criminal law cases.

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q42 and 43 p7.

A court of general jurisdiction is a court which is conferred with substantive [subject-matter] jurisdiction to adjudicate on all types of proceedings brought at the jurisdictional instance to which that court belongs  and which are not attributed to specialised courts owing to the nature of the subject-matter.

Court president

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q46 and 47 p13.

It must be understood as a judge (or non-judge) who is in charge of the organisation and the management of a court (legal entity) or, where so provided under the national law, court chamber or court section.

Disciplinary proceedings

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q160 to 162 p28.

Autre definition

They are generally introduced by other lawyers or judges. Disciplinary proceedings may, depending on the provisions of the national legal order concerned,  be within the competence of bar associations, a special chamber at a court, the ministry of justice or a combination of some of them.

Disposition Time (DT) (Estimated)

Source: European judicial systems, Efficiency and quality of justice, CEPEJ Studies No. 23, Edition 2016 (2014 data), p185.

The ratio between pending cases at the end of a given period and the cases resolved during that period, multiplied by 365, so as to be able to express it in number of days.

 

CHANGER la formule

Source: CEPEJ (2016)12 - Measuring the quality of justice, p10

Note: It measures the estimated number of days that are needed to bring a case to an end.

Source:

-       CEPEJ (2014)16 - CEPEJ-SATURN – Revised Saturn Guidelines for judicial Time Management (2^nd revision), EUGMONT, p 13.

-       CEPEJ (2008)11, “CEPEJ Guidelines on judicial statistics (GOJUST)”, 5.3 p 12.

Duration of proceedings

Source: CEPEJ (2016)12 - Measuring the quality of justice, p10

The duration of proceedings is the most important and significant indicator for measuring the performance of judicial systems and their components.

There are two important indicators concerning the duration of judicial proceedings (both for civil cases and for criminal or administrative cases):

A)            Actual duration

B)            Prospective duration

The actual duration measures the laps of time between the date on which a new case is initiated and the date where a judgment is issued.

Echevinage

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q49 and 49.1 p14.

It is a system of judicial organisation in which cases are heard and decided by jurisdictions that are composed of both professional magistrates (who preside the jurisdiction), and persons who do not belong to the professional magistrates.

Efficiency rate (ER indicator) a revoir

Source: CEPEJ (2016)12 - Measuring the quality of justice, p12.

Relation between the number of personnel employed in a court in a given year and the output of cases from the same court at the end of that year. Typically, this indicator is applied to homogeneous categories of activity such as civil justice, criminal sector, administrative tasks, etc. ER measures the quantity of output produced by a productive unit over a unit of time.

Output (decisions, proceedings, etc.)

ER = -------------------------------------------------------------------

Nr. of People (who produced that output)

Source:

-       CEPEJ (2014)16 - CEPEJ-SATURN – Revised Saturn Guidelines for judicial Time Management (2^nd revision), EUGMONT, p 14.

-       CEPEJ (2008)11, “CEPEJ Guidelines on judicial statistics (GOJUST)”, 5.1 p 12.

Relationship between the number of personnel used in a court in a year and the output of cases from the same court at the end of the year.

ENFORCEMENT

Enforcement

Source: Enforcement of court decisions in Europe - CEPEJ Studies No. 8 p15 / Recommendation Rec(2003) 17 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on enforcement

The execution of court decisions, and also other judicial or non-judicial enforceable titles in compliance with the law , including by seizure by an enforcement agent of the assets of a judgment debtor which are legally available for seizure.

Enforcement agent

Source:

-       Recommendation Rec(2003)17 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on enforcement of court decisions.

-       CEPEJ Studies n°8 – Enforcement of courts decisions in Europe, p16.

-       Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q169 p29.

A person authorised by the state to carry out the enforcement process irrespective of whether that person is employed by the state or not.

Enforced case

Source: Enforcement of court decisions in Europe - CEPEJ Studies No. 8 p16

In order to be enforced, the case must have been the subject of an action that has fully satisfied the plaintiff (in a civil case) or of an action that has implemented the determination of the sentence (in a criminal case).

Enforcement costs (voir expenses ci-dessous aussi)

Source: Enforcement of court decisions in Europe - CEPEJ Studies No. 8 p16

Enforcement costs consist of the enforcement expenses and – where provided for in the national legal order concerned - any performance bonus paid by the claimant to the enforcement agent in the form of fees.

Enforcement expenses

Source: Enforcement of court decisions in Europe - CEPEJ Studies No. 8 p16

The expenses of the process itself, in other words, the total of the amounts for each action undertaken by the enforcement agent in the course of a single case (see Enforcement costs).

Enforcement time

Source: Enforcement of court decisions in Europe - CEPEJ Studies No. 8 p16

In theory, the time period between the beginning and the completion of the enforcement process. In practice, it is the sum of the periods necessary for the completion of all the actions carried out by the enforcement agent.

Enforcement services

Source: Enforcement of court decisions in Europe - CEPEJ Studies No. 8 p16

The agents/agencies tasked with performing the task of enforcement.

Expected time for enforcement

Source: Enforcement of court decisions in Europe - CEPEJ Studies No. 8 p16

In theory, the time within which the user is informed that the enforcement process should be completed. In practice, this time is often limited to the time necessary for the completion of the next enforcement measure.

Full-time equivalent

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q55-56 p15.

An indicator of the number of personnel employed calculated by reference to  a standard rate of hours per employee (whereas a gross figure refers to the total number of persons working, independently of the extent of their working hours).

Gross salary

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q132 p27.

Gross remuneration calculated before any deductions from same for social welfare insurance and taxes have been made.

(Gross) salaries

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, p3 and p6 (categories included in the Annual public budget).

This amount should include the total salary costs for the employer: if, in addition to the gross salary proper, the employer also pays insurances and/or pensions, these contributions should be included.

NB: salaire net

High Council for the judiciary

Source:

-       Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE), Opinion No. 10.

-       Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q15.1,15.2,15.3 p7.

This single term encompasses the diversity of judicial governance bodies within European systems and evokes the High Council for the Judiciary or another equivalent independent body.

Intentional homicide

Source:

-       Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q101, 101.1 and 102 p24.

-       CEPEJ (2014)16 - CEPEJ-SATURN – Revised Saturn Guidelines for judicial Time Management (2^nd revision), EUGMONT, p 11.

The intentional killing of a person.

JUDGES

Judge

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q46 à 52 p13.

An official appointed as a member of a court who is charged with exercising the judicial power of the State in adjudicating on specific type(s) of judicial civil disputes or trying persons accused of criminal offences. It must be understood according to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. In particular, the judge decides, according to the law and following an organised procedure, on any issue within his/her jurisdiction. He/she is independent from the executive power.

Non-professional judges

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q49 and 49.1 p14.

Non-professional judges are lay persons charged with exercising the judicial power of the State.  They sit in courts and their decisions are binding. This category includes namely lay judges and the (French) "juges consulaires".

Source : Commentaires du Questionnaire Q49 p555

S’entendent comme ceux qui siègent aux tribunaux et rendent des décisions contraignantes, mais qui n’entrent pas dans les catégories de juge professionnel ni de juge professionnel occasionnel (au sens des questions 46 et 48)

Occasional professional judges

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q48 and 48.1 p13.

Judges who do not perform their duty on a permanent basis but who are paid for their function as a judge.

Professional judges

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q46 and 47 p13.

Judges who have been recruited, professionally trained and appointed to a remunerated position as such.

Source: European judicial systems, Efficiency and quality of justice, CEPEJ Studies No. 23, Edition 2016 (2014 data), p81.

“Those who have been trained and who are paid as such”, and whose main function is to work as a judge and not as a prosecutor.

Source: Explanatory note revised and commented scheme for evaluating judicial systems, Q49 and 49.1 p12

Judicial experts

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q202 p32.

Persons holding particular expertise in subject-matter on which exvidence may require to be given in court. The role and function of experts are very different depending on their position within the procedure, which varies especially between continental and common law systems.

There is a need to differentiate several types of experts:

• the "expert witnesses", mainly used in adversarial systems (in particular in common law countries), who are requested by the parties to bring their expertise to support the parties'  argumentation,
• the "technical experts" who put at the judge's disposal their scientific and technical knowledge on issues of fact (for instance in forensic medicine, psychiatry, criminal sciences, biology, architecture, arts)
• the "law experts" who might be consulted by the judge on specific legal issues or requested to support the judge in preparing the judicial work (but do not take part in the decision).

Judicial map

Source: CEPEJ (2013)7 – Guidelines on the creation of judicial maps to support access to justice within a quality judicial system, 1.3 p4.

May refer to one or more of the following: the jurisdictional hierarchy, distribution of court instances and network of court venues within a State. The definition of a judicial map is a complex activity that needs to be broken down into phases that can take several months before they are fully completed. Such main phases can be defined as: Access Current judicial map and indicators; set objectives and criteria; build and measure indicators; define new judicial map.

Judicial mediation

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q163 p29.

This type of mediation involves the intervention of a judge or a public prosecutor who facilitates, advises on, decides on or/and approves the procedure. For example, in civil disputes or divorce cases, judges may refer parties to a mediator if they believe that more satisfactory results can be achieved for both parties. In criminal law cases, a public prosecutor can propose that he/she mediates a case between an offender and a victim (for example to establish a compensation agreement).

NB mediation

JUSTICE FEE/EXPENSES

Fee structure

 

Source: CEPEJ - Access to justice in Europe / CEPEJ studies No. 9 p14 and Explanatory note revised and commented scheme for evaluating judicial systems, Q8.1 p6

The classic procedural costs are made up of court fees (the charge for institution of proceedings) and lawyer’s fees. Costs of alternative procedure are those falling to the user of alternative methods of dispute resolution (mediation, etc.).

There may be a general rule in some states according to which a party is required to pay a court tax or fee to start a proceeding at a court of general jurisdiction. Court taxes or fees are distinguishable from lawyers' fees.

Judicial costs

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q27 p9.

They include all costs of legal proceedings and other services related to the case paid by the parties during the proceedings (taxes, legal advice, legal representation, travel expenses, etc).

Justice expenses borne by the State

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, p3 and p6, (categories included in the Annual public budget).

Expenses borne by the state (or by the justice system) refer to the amounts that the courts should pay out within the framework of judicial proceedings, such as expenses paid for expert opinions or court interpreters.

Lawyers

 

Source:

-       Recommendation Rec(2000)21 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the freedom of exercise of the profession of lawyer.

-       Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q146 p28.

-       European judicial systems, Efficiency and quality of justice, CEPEJ Studies No. 23, Edition 2016 (2014 data), p158.

-      

A person qualified and authorised according to national law to plead and act on behalf of his or her clients, to engage in the practice of law, to appear before the courts or advise and represent his or her clients in legal matters.

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q149 and 149.1 p28.

Self-employed lawyer: a lawyer practicing in a private practice (associate lawyer for example).

Staff lawyer:a lawyer employed by a law firm (e.g. a collaborator).

In-house lawyer: he/she has the lawyer status but practises within a company, exclusively on behalf of a company.

Legal advisors

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q147 and 148 p28.

Legal professionals who give legal advice and prepare legal documents but have no competence to represent clients before the courts.

Legal aid

Source:

-       Resolution Res(78)8 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on Legal Aid and Advice.

-       Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, p9.

Aid provided by the state to persons who do not have sufficient financial means to defend themselves before a court.

Source: CEPEJ - Access to justice in Europe / CEPEJ studies No. 9 p13 and Explanatory note revised and commented scheme for evaluating judicial systems, p8

It is the assistance provided by the state to persons who do not have sufficient financial means to defend themselves in court (or to bring judicial proceedings). As thus defined, legal aid is mainly concerned with legal representation in court. However, legal aid may also be concerned with legal advice: not everyone who encounters a legal problem will necessarily take the matter to court (see Fee structure).

Median (see also average)

Source: European judicial systems, Efficiency and quality of justice, CEPEJ Studies No. 23, Edition 2016 (2014 data), p10.

It is the middle point of a set of ordered numbers. The median is the value that divides the data concernedinto two equal groups so that 50% of the numbers are above this value and 50% are below it.

The median is sometimes better to use than the average, as it is less sensitive to extreme values. The effect of the extreme values is then neutralised.

Example 1

Example 2 with an odd set of values

Mediation

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q163 p29.

This is a voluntary, non-binding private dispute resolution process in which a neutral and independent person assists the parties in facilitating the discussion between the parties in order to help them resolve their difficulties and reach an agreement. It exists in civil, administrative and criminal matters.

Net salary

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q132 p27.

The salary remaining afterany deductions from same for social welfare costs insurance and taxes have been made. .

Non-judge staff

 

Non-judge (judicial) staff

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q52 p14.

Court staff directly assisting a judge in the exercise of his/her judicial functions (assistance during hearings, (judicial) preparation of a case, court recording, judicial assistance in the drafting of the order/ decision of the judge, legal counselling - for example court registrars).

Source: CEPEJ(2016)14 - Structural measures adopted by some Council of Europe member states to improve the functioning of civil and administrative justice. In addition to the effective domestic remedies required by Article 13 of the ECHR - Good practice guide, 49 p10.

The non-judge staff assists the judge at the hearing and helps draft judicial orders/ decisions and making research on the case law

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q52 p15.

This includes all non-judge staff not included under the categories: Rechtspfleger, Non-judge (judicial) staff, Administrative staff and Technical Staff.

Notary

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q192 p31.

A legal official who has been entrusted by the public authority with the safeguarding of the freedom of consent and the protection of the rightful interests of individuals. A signature by the notary confers authenticity to legal acts. As a guarantor of legal security, the notary has an important role to play in limiting litigation between parties. Thereby, he/she is a major actor in preventive justice.

It is important to make a distinction between the Civil-law notaries (“Latin notaries”) and the “public notaries”, who do not have the same competencies. The Latin notaries are public officers who are tasked by the state authority to authenticate legal deeds. They practice their profession as independent practitioners. The public notaries, for their part, are officials who are not authorized to authenticate legal deeds and can only certify signatures (the concept of authentication of legal deeds is specific to the Latin system). 

Adjournments

Source: CEPEJ (2016)12 - Measuring the quality of justice, p11.

The number of adjournments decided prior to the solving of the case.

OFFENCE

Offence

 

Source: CCPE Opinion No. 5 (2010) p3

Any act or omission that infringes the law and implies a penal sanction and is dealt with by a court exercising criminal jurisdiction (including, where the national legal order provides, any other judicial or administrative authority).

Criminal offence

Source: Explanatory note revised and commented scheme for evaluating judicial systems, Q144 and 145 p23

Aan offence committed in the private or professional framework and open to sanction.

Misdemeanour offence

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q50 p14.

All offences for which it is not possible to pronounce a sentence of privation of liberty (arrest and detention, imprisonment)

Source: European judicial systems, Efficiency and quality of justice, CEPEJ Studies No. 23, Edition 2016 (2014 data), p217.

Same definition but under the name “minor offences”.

Serious offences

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q50 p14.

All offences punishable by a deprivation of liberty (arrest and detention, imprisonment).

Private mediators

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q164 p29.

Private individuals who are professionally qualified to act as mediators

Procedural deadline or time limits

Source: Towards European Timeframes for Judicial Proceedings - Implementation Guide, p2

 Time periods for the taking of steps in a court case established by the procedural law and entailing legal consequences in the event of non-compliance.

Urgent cases (accelerated)

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q87 p19.

  Procedure enabling the judge to take a provisional decision (e.g. decision on the right to control and care for a child) or when it is necessary to preserve evidence or when there is a risk of imminent or hardly repairable damage

PROSECUTOR

First instance prosecutors

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q55-56 p15.

Prosecutors who know for the first time of a case

Head of public prosecution office

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q55-56 p15.

It should be understood as a prosecutor (or non-prosecutor) who is in charge of the organisation and management of a prosecution office (legal entity).

Public Prosecutor:

Source:

-       Recommendation Rec(2000)19 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the role of public prosecution in the criminal justice system.

-       Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q13 p7.

-       European judicial systems, Efficiency and quality of justice, CEPEJ Studies No. 23, Edition 2016 (2014 data), p17.

Public prosecutors are “(…)authorities who, on behalf of society and in the public interest, ensure the application of the law and conduct prosecutions where the breach of the law carries a criminal sanction, taking into account both the rights of the individual and the necessary effectiveness of the criminal justice system".

Prosecutors

Source: CCPE Opinion No.9 (2014) p1

They contribute to ensuring that the rule of law is guaranteed, especially by the fair, impartial and efficient administration of justice in all cases and at all stages of the proceedings within their competence.

They act on behalf of society and in the public interest to respect and protect human rights and freedoms as laid down, in particular, in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.

Second instance prosecutors

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q55-56 p15.

Prosecutors performing prosecution functions in criminal cases appealed to  second instance..

Quality measurement

Source: CEPEJ (2016)12 - Measuring the quality of justice, p3.

It can be assumed that there are two ways of measuring the degree of quality of a product or a service:

a)               measuring the extent to which a product or service has a certain number of features and pre-defined indicators (conformity with requirements);

b)               measuring the gap between the expectations that the user had before using the goods or services and the assessment made following the use or consumption of these goods or services (conformity with expectations).

1.            It is important to note that the definition of quality contained in a common dictionary makes explicit reference to the two ways of measuring indicated above: "Quality is a notion to which are brought aspects of reality susceptible of classification or judgment."

2.            There are two preconditions for measuring quality in accordance with the principle of conformity with requirements described above:

I.              there must be (pre) defined quality parameters;

II.             there must be fixed standards of quality.

Quality of justice

Source: CEPEJ (2016)12 - Measuring the quality of justice, p4.

It is often understood exclusively as the “quality of judicial decisions”.^[2] In a broader sense, it also covers key aspects of the way judicial services are provided. In this case, policy makers and reformers aiming at measuring this kind of quality will focus on aspects that go beyond the quality of the decision solely and will include parameters such as timeliness, activity rates, clearance rates, etc.

Rechtspfleger

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q52 p14.

Nn independent judicial officer charged with functions conferred on him/her by law, in particular adjudicative or discretionary functions. Such functions may be connected to: family and guardianship law, law of succession, law on land register, commercial registers, decisions about granting a nationality, criminal law cases, enforcement of sentences, reduced sentencing by way of community service, prosecution in district courts, decisions concerning legal aid, etc.

Source: European judicial systems, Efficiency and quality of justice, CEPEJ Studies No. 23, Edition 2016 (2014 data), p146.

An independent judicial officer, anchored in the constitution and performing the tasks assigned to him/her by law; the Rechtspfleger does not assist the judge, but works alongside the latter and may carry out various legal tasks, for example in the areas of family or succession law; he/she also has the competence to make judicial decisions independently on the granting of nationality, payment orders, execution of court decisions, auctions of immovable goods, criminal cases, and enforcement of judgements in criminal matters; he/she is finally competent to undertake administrative judicial tasks. The Rechtspfleger, to a certain extent, falls between judges and non-judge staff, such as registrars.

Source: CEPEJ(2016)14 - Structural measures adopted by some Council of Europe member states to improve the functioning of civil and administrative justice. In addition to the effective domestic remedies required by Article 13 of the ECHR - Good practice guide, 50 p10.

The Rechtspfleger is defined as an independent judicial officer anchored in the law or in the Constitution, who performs duties delegated to him by the law, which are of jurisdictional character, following a transfer of tasks of judges. More particularly, the Rechtspfleger does not assist the judge. He is present at his side and may be entrusted by law with different tasks, for example in the area of ​​family law and custody law, inheritance law or the law of the land and business registers. He may also be empowered to take independent decisions on the fields of allocation of nationality, payment orders, enforcement of judgments, forced sales of property, criminal cases, enforcement of criminal cases (publication of arrest warrants or tracking), implementation of alternative sentences to prison or performing community service, prosecution before the district court, legal aid, etc.

Robbery

Source:

-       Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q101, 101.1 and 102 p24.

-       CEPEJ (2014)16 - CEPEJ-SATURN – Revised Saturn Guidelines for judicial Time Management (2^nd revision), EUGMONT, p 11.

Sstealing from a person with force or threat of force. If possible these figures should include muggings (bag-snatching, armed theft, etc.) and exclude pick pocketing, extortion and blackmail (according to the definition of the European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice).

Vol qualifié

Source : CEPEJ (2014)16 - CEPEJ-SATURN – Lignes Directrices révisées du centre Saturn pour la gestion du temps judiciaire (2^nde révision), EUGMONT, p11.

Consiste à voler une personne en faisant usage de la force ou en menaçant d’y recourir.

Simplified procedure

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q88 and 88.1 p19.

Procedure used in civil matters instance.g. for enforcement of a simple obligation (e.g. payment order).

 

For criminal matters, the term indicates a procedure under which  petty offences (for instance minor traffic offences or shoplifting) can be processed through administrative or simplified procedures. These offences are considered as subject to sanctions of criminal nature by the European Court of Human Rights and shall therefore be processed with respect for the relevant procedural rights.

Technical staff

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q52 p15.

Staff in charge of execution tasks or any technical and other maintenance related duties such as ICt technicians, cleaning staff, security staff, electricians etc..

Timeframe (judicial)

Source: CEPEJ (2016)5 - Towards European Timeframes for Judicial Proceedings - Implementation Guide, Intro p3.

An established period of time within which cases have to be resolved.

Note: timeframes should not be confused with procedural deadlines or time limits, which apply to individual cases. Procedural deadlines or time limits are usually established by the procedural law and entail that an action must occur in a specific time or there will be legal consequences.

Waiting time

Source: Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q72p17.

The time during which nothing happens in a procedure (for instance because the judge is waiting for an expert’s report). It is not the general length of the procedure.

Workload

Source: CEPEJ (2016)5 - Towards European Timeframes for Judicial Proceedings - Implementation Guide, Intro p3.

The whole work that a court, or a judges, deals with, being the sum of all the activities carried out by a court or by a judge (e.g. caseload, management duties, any other activity that is part of the work of the court or of the judge).

Dissmissal

Definitions - Annex I

Lawyers

Source: Handbook for conducting satisfaction surveys aimed at court users in Council of Europe Member States, CEPEJ (2016)15, 3.2 p7.

They are registered with the Bar association of the court concerned, or outside its district but occasionally acting for clients there.

Legal professionals

Source: Handbook for conducting satisfaction surveys aimed at court users in Council of Europe Member States, CEPEJ (2016)15, 3.2 p7.

They are in most frequent contact with the court concerned (notaries and bailiffs).

Mirror surveys

Source: Handbook for conducting satisfaction surveys aimed at court users in Council of Europe Member States, CEPEJ (2016)15, 3.3.3 p9.

They consist in getting court staff to assess the level of user satisfaction or encouraging them to look at their own work.

Mystery shopping

Source: Handbook for conducting satisfaction surveys aimed at court users in Council of Europe Member States, CEPEJ (2016)15, 3.3.3 p10.

It is a technique increasingly being used in areas of activity concerned with customer satisfaction and quality development. The “mystery shopper” is a person sent by a specialist outside firm who poses as a customer in order to measure the standard of service and reception. This person is given specific assessment criteria, which will be sent to the survey sponsor, often in the form of a questionnaire.

Other professionals

Source: Handbook for conducting satisfaction surveys aimed at court users in Council of Europe Member States, CEPEJ (2016)15, 3.2 p7.

They are frequently called upon to assist the courts, whose contribution substantially affects the quality of justice: expert witnesses and interpreters.

Parties

Source: Handbook for conducting satisfaction surveys aimed at court users in Council of Europe Member States, CEPEJ (2016)15, 3.2 p7.

Individuals undergoing trial are one category of users of the public justice service. Some countries such as Canada, the Netherlands and Switzerland, use the label “customer/client” over and above its commercial meaning to describe the individual receiving the service delivered (consumer, client, beneficiary, etc.).

Peer-review method (or “intervision”)

Source: Handbook for conducting satisfaction surveys aimed at court users in Council of Europe Member States, CEPEJ (2016)15, 3.3.3 p9.

It consists in having judges assess each other outside the hierarchical framework.

Qualitative surveys

Source: Handbook for conducting satisfaction surveys aimed at court users in Council of Europe Member States, CEPEJ (2016)15, 3.3.1 p7.

Qualitative surveys are more exploratory in nature and can be used to identify trends in user satisfaction/expectations. More generally, they can often provide very useful information, which can then be studied as part of a quantitative survey.

 Quantitative surveys

Source: Handbook for conducting satisfaction surveys aimed at court users in Council of Europe Member States, CEPEJ (2016)15, 3.3.1 p8.

Quantitative surveys measure user satisfaction statistically on the basis of a representative sample if the number of users is large.

Survey types

Source: Handbook for conducting satisfaction surveys aimed at court users in Council of Europe Member States, CEPEJ (2016)15, 1.2 p3.

• Opinion surveys: These involve asking people to give their opinion of preference on a particular subject, such as How much do you trust the justice system? or What is the image of the justice system?
• Quality surveys: These involve studying the extent to which a service lives up to the promise made: How quickly did you receive the summons?
• Satisfaction surveys: These measure the extent to which a service lives up to users’ expectations: Are you satisfied with the signposting at the courthouse?

Definitions - Annex 2

A Likert scale

Source: CEPEJ (2008)2 - Customer Satisfaction Surveys Among Court Users – Checklist for Court Coaching, 13p4.

A psychometric scale commonly used in research that employs questionnaires. It is the most widely used approach to scaling responses in survey research, such that the term is often used interchangeably with rating scale

Direct costs

Source: CEPEJ (2008)2 - Customer Satisfaction Surveys Among Court Users – Checklist for Court Coaching, 21p5.

Those costs paid directly for necessary items and services such as for materials to be used in the survey or for the external company that conducts the interviews.

Indirect costs

Source: CEPEJ (2008)2 - Customer Satisfaction Surveys Among Court Users – Checklist for Court Coaching, 21p5.

Those costs that do not generate an out-of-pocket expense but represent time and resources dedicated by the court to the project such as the time spent by the people involved (magistrates, staff, etc.), use of spaces and materials from the court (rooms, utilities, stationery, etc.).

Scope of the project

Source: CEPEJ (2008)2 - Customer Satisfaction Surveys Among Court Users – Checklist for Court Coaching, 5p3.

This proposed definition of the scope refers to the identification of the boundaries of the initiative and elements of the judiciary that are under scrutiny.

Definitions - Annex 3

Special survey of civil justice

Source: CEPEJ(2016)14 - Structural measures adopted by some Council of Europe member states to improve the functioning of civil and administrative justice. In addition to the effective domestic remedies required by Article 13 of the ECHR - Good practice guide, 87 p 14.

Briefly, this involves a more detailed statistical analysis of cases based on the length of proceedings (year when proceedings were initiated), the type of proceedings (e.g. contentious/non-contentious), the court concerned, its location and its size. The aims of this analysis were to:

-       Identify, within the number of pending cases, those which have already exceeded a reasonable duration;

-       determine the real productivity of judges, taking into account the complexity of the cases decided;

-       give court presidents increased responsibility.

Definitions - Annex 4

Case per judge (CPJ indicator)

Source:

-       CEPEJ (2014)16 - CEPEJ-SATURN – Revised Saturn Guidelines for judicial Time Management (2^nd revision), EUGMONT, p 14.

-       CEPEJ (2008)11, “CEPEJ Guidelines on judicial statistics (GOJUST)”, 5.7 p 12.

Number of cases of a particular type per judge in the given period.

Standard departure (SD indicator)

Source:

-       CEPEJ (2014)16 - CEPEJ-SATURN – Revised Saturn Guidelines for judicial Time Management (2^nd revision), EUGMONT, p 14.

-       CEPEJ (2008)11, “CEPEJ Guidelines on judicial statistics (GOJUST)”, 5.1 p 12.

Departure from the set targets per type of case in the given period, in percentage or days.

Definitions - Annex 5

Claimant

Source: CEPEJ(2015)10 - Good practice guide on enforcement of judicial decisions, p16.

A person who, during the implementation of an enforcement procedure, applies to a court to request an authorisation or file an objection (for instance an objection challenging the validity of an enforcement order or the ownership of an asset subject to such a measure).

Creditor

Source: CEPEJ(2015)10 - Good practice guide on enforcement of judicial decisions, p15.

A party seeking payment or enforcement of a debt. Under the conditions provided for by national law, creditors may force defaulting debtors to honour their obligations in their regard^[3].

Debtor

Source: CEPEJ(2015)10 - Good practice guide on enforcement of judicial decisions, p16.

 A party, bound by an obligation to pay a debt,  against whom enforcement is sought^[4].

Defendant

Source: CEPEJ(2015)10 - Good practice guide on enforcement of judicial decisions, p16.

It is a person against whom a claimant brings legal action during the implementation of an enforcement procedure.

Disciplinary rules (for enforcement agents)

 

Source: CEPEJ(2015)10 - Good practice guide on enforcement of judicial decisions, p16.

All of the rules describing the types of misconduct, the procedure, the disciplinary body and the penalties applicable to enforcement agents, all in accordance with the requirements of a fair trial.

e-Enforcement

Source: CEPEJ(2015)10 - Good practice guide on enforcement of judicial decisions, p16.

It is the use of new communication technologies during the enforcement of enforceable titles, manifesting itself in particular through the establishment of totally paperless enforcement procedures

Enforceable title

Source: CEPEJ(2015)10 - Good practice guide on enforcement of judicial decisions, p16.

 

A judicial act (such as a court decision) or a non-judicial act (such as a notarised instrument) establishing a party’s right to receive payment of a debt, on the basis of which national legislation allows the use of enforcement measures.

Enforcement agent

Source: CEPEJ(2015)10 - Good practice guide on enforcement of judicial decisions, p15.

A person legally authorised by the state to carry out the enforcement process, not including persons with the status of a judge. He or she may be a private professional vested with a portion of public authority or a public official. His or her status is regulated by the law.

Enforcement measures

Source: CEPEJ(2015)10 - Good practice guide on enforcement of judicial decisions, p16.

Legal remedies which enable creditors holding enforceable titles to obtain what is owed to them when their debtors do not spontaneously fulfil their obligations towards them.

Enforcement procedures

Source: CEPEJ(2015)10 - Good practice guide on enforcement of judicial decisions, p16.

All the formalities and acts legally required to implement a protective measure and/or an enforcement measure in a given case.

Investigations of assets

Source: CEPEJ(2015)10 - Good practice guide on enforcement of judicial decisions, p16.

Measures taken by a legally empowered authority to locate and identify the contents of a debtor’s assets.

Operative provisions of a court decision

Source: CEPEJ(2015)10 - Good practice guide on enforcement of judicial decisions, p16.

The final part of a court decision containing the actual settlement of the dispute.

Professional standards (of enforcement agents)

Source: CEPEJ(2015)10 - Good practice guide on enforcement of judicial decisions, p16.

All of the duties pertaining to a professional activity, as imposed on enforcement agents.

Protective measure

Source: CEPEJ(2015)10 - Good practice guide on enforcement of judicial decisions, p16.

Measure taken with the aim of protecting creditors’ rights, which the trial court is, moreover, asked to recognise, while keeping debtors’ assets intact. Unlike enforcement measures, protective measures do not involve any transfer of ownership. For increased efficiency, these measures are taken following non-adversarial proceedings and debtors are notified only once they have come into effect.

Receiver

Source: CEPEJ(2015)10 - Good practice guide on enforcement of judicial decisions, p16.

Third party, appointed by the court or by mutual agreement of the parties, with whom assets are deposited which are subject to a protective or enforcement measure.

Service of documents

Source: CEPEJ(2015)10 - Good practice guide on enforcement of judicial decisions, p16.

Process enabling a legally authorised official to bring a judicial or non-judicial act to the notice of its recipient.

Stakeholders in the enforcement process

Source: CEPEJ(2015)10 - Good practice guide on enforcement of judicial decisions, p15.

Persons directly or indirectly involved in the enforcement procedure. This includes the parties (the creditor and the debtor), the third parties and the bodies running the procedure (the judicial authorities and the enforcement agent).

Third party

Source: CEPEJ(2015)10 - Good practice guide on enforcement of judicial decisions, p16.

Persons involved in one way or another in the process of enforcing a judicial or non-judicial decision who are not creditors or debtors, but not including bodies running the procedure (judicial authorities and enforcement agents) or law enforcement bodies (such as the police). More often than not, this would include a person owing a debt to the debtor  (e.g. the debtor’s employer or a bank with which the debtor holds one or more accounts in credit) or a person holding an asset belonging to the debtor on his or her behalf.

Wrongful obstruction by debtors

Source: CEPEJ(2015)10 - Good practice guide on enforcement of judicial decisions, p16.

Debtors who raise objections which are aimed solely at delaying proceedings or have no serious basis are guilty of wrongful obstruction.