Strasbourg, 1 August 2006 CEPEJ (2006) 7
European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice
(CEPEJ)
7th plenary meeting
Rome, 6 - 7 July 2006
meeting REport
|
MAIN DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE CEPEJ The CEPEJ: warmly thanked Mr Franco FRATTINI, Vice-President of the European Commission, responsible for Justice, Liberties and Security, for having accepted to meet with it and welcomed the very clear support given to its works, in particular for evaluating European judicial systems, as well as the interest shown towards a strengthened cooperation between the European Commission and the CEPEJ in this field, taking into account their necessary complementarity but also their own objectives and specificities; noted with great interest that the communication on the quality of justice which was under preparation within the European Commission would refer to the work of the CEPEJ and thanked Vice-President FRATTINI for having invited it to participate in the forum on the quality of justice which would be set up by the European Commission; reiterated its high readiness to fully cooperate with the relevant institutions of the European Union, so that they can benefit from the results of its works; instructed the Secretariat to pursue discussions with the European Commission to make such cooperation concrete; invited its members and the judicial bodies in the member states to submit before 31 August 2006 entries for the European Prize for innovative practices contributing to the quality of civil justice: "The Crystal Scales of Justice Prize and recalled its members to indicate to the Secretariat as soon as possible the initiatives implemented at national level for the European Day of Civil Justice; approved the 2005 Activity Report of the CEPEJ (CEPEJ (2006) 3) and decided to forward it to the Committee of Ministers for approval. adopted, in accordance both with the Action Plan of the 3rd Summit of the Heads of State and government and with its Statute, the "Report on European judicial systems – Edition 2006" (CEPEJ (2006) 4 Rev), provided that: - comments could be indicated by the delegations to the Secretariat before 11 July 2006, - further comments could be drafted before the end of August 2006 by the experts of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL, under the authority of the CEPEJ Bureau, who were instructed to do so to facilitate the reading and understanding of the statistical data; decided to forward the final report as soon as possible to the Committee of Ministers so that it could take note of it; decided that the Report would remain confidential until the Committee of Ministers has taken note of it and invited all its members and observers to strictly respect this rule of confidentiality so as to ensure the relevance and coherence of the publication by the Council of Europe; instructed the experts of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL to prepare a synthesis of the report to facilitate its understanding and reading; this synthesis would be published together the report; instructed the Secretariat to organise the appropriate publication and dissemination of the report, including through its website, once the Committee of Ministers had taken note of it; decided to publish in extenso, on its website, all the individual answers of the member states to the evaluation Scheme; therefore it invited each delegation to check that the national answers appearing on the CEPEJ website had indeed been updated and, where appropriate, to submit to the Secretariat a consolidated version of these answers before 15 September 2006; it agreed that a State which would not wish to make its data public could request it before 15 September 2006; agreed to define at its 8th plenary meeting the period to be considered for the next exercise; agreed, in accordance with its medium-term activity programme, to pursue the analysis of the facts and figures presented in the report, including by opening the exploitation of the data to researchers who would wish to benefit from the scientific support of the CEPEJ, according to modalities to be defined with the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL, under the authority of the CEPEJ Bureau; took note of the report presented by the chairman of the CEPEJ-TF-DEL, Alan UZELAC (Croatia), regarding the progress of the ongoing work of the Task Force; took note of the report presented by member of the CEPEJ on behalf of the Czech Republic, regarding the progress of the ongoing work by the CEPEJ-GT-MED; took note of the report presented by Ms Paola TONARELLI-LACORE, Lawyer at the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights, on the treatment of lengths of proceedings in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and noted with satisfaction that several recent judgements referred now explicitly to the work of the CEPEJ in this field; took note of the report presented by Mr Mario REMUS, advisor to the Department for the execution of judgements of the European Court of Human Rights, Directorate General II – Human Rights; underlined that it would pursue its work to design tools and measures of general character enabling to facilitate the application of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and thus to contribute to a smoother functioning of the mechanisms to protect human rights; took note of the developments presented by the CEPEJ member in respect of the Russian Federation as regards the implementation of the CEPEJ report: "Examination of problems related to the execution of decisions by national civil courts against the state and its bodies in the Russian Federation" (CEPEJ (2005) 8); decided to invite the Consultative Council of European Prosecutors (CCPE) to participate as observer in its plenary meetings; decided to give the observer status, for a two year period, renewable, to the European Network of Judicial Training (ENJT). |
The European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) held its 7th plenary meeting in Rome on 6 and 7 July 2006, at the invitation of the Italian Ministry of Justice. The meeting was chaired by Mr Eberhard DESCH (Germany), Chair of the CEPEJ.
The agenda and the list of participants are set out in Appendices I and II respectively.
1. Welcoming address by the Minister of Justice of Italy
The Minister of Justice of Italy, Mr Clemente MASTELLA, welcomed the CEPEJ to Rome, emphasising the relevance of the Commission's work, particularly in the evaluation of judicial systems and monitoring of the length of judicial procedures. This work was of direct benefit for judicial reforms in Italy, since speeding up justice would be a priority for his Ministry.
The CEPEJ expressed heartfelt thanks to the Minister and his team, and particularly the CEPEJ member in respect of Italy, Mr Fausto DE SANTIS, for the excellent welcome and high quality of meeting organisation.
2. Information from the Chair of the CEPEJ and the Secretariat
The Secretariat informed the CEPEJ that the respective secretariats of the CEPEJ, the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) and the Lisbon network had been brought together within the Division of the judiciary and programmes to facilitate synergy between those bodies, while retaining their respective tasks and specific characteristics. One person tasked specifically with managing communication tools had been assigned to the CEPEJ Secretariat.
The Secretariat informed the CEPEJ that the Consultative Council of European Prosecutors (CCPE) had been set up within the Council of Europe, with tasks including advising the Committee of Ministers on criminal law policy and facilitating the implementation of Recommendation Rec (2002)19 on the role of public prosecution in the criminal justice system. The CEPEJ agreed to develop appropriate working relations with the CCPE, along the lines of those forged with the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE).
The Chair of the CEPEJ informed the Commission that he had taken part in the meeting on improving judicial systems held in Madrid on 25 May 2006 within the framework of the 50th anniversary of the chamber of lawyers specialising in social affairs, where the activities of the CEPEJ had been presented.
The Secretariat of the CEPEJ said that it had attended the 8th annual meeting of the International Union of judicial officers (UIHJ) held in Washington DC from 25 to 28 April 2006. The CEPEJ welcomed the very fruitful cooperation with the UIHJ.
3. Relations between the CEPEJ and the European Union
The Director General of Legal Affairs welcomed the Vice-President of the European Commission and EU Commissioner responsible for Justice, Freedom and Security, Mr Franco FRATTINI.
The introductory report by the Vice-Chair of the CEPEJ, Mr André POTOCKI, is set out in Appendix III to the present report.
In his address to the CEPEJ, Vice-President FRATTINI stressed the importance of cooperation between the Council of Europe and the European Commission. He emphasised his backing for the activities of the CEPEJ, which were contributing to the implementation of European standards on quality and efficiency of justice. He hailed the successful cooperation between the CEPEJ and the European Commission through the European Day of Civil Justice, the European Prize "Crystal Scales of Justice " and the joint conferences run on a regular basis.
Mr FRATTINI informed the CEPEJ of several concrete initiatives in the judicial field:
- discussion of a European framework for European procedural rights and access to justice was still ongoing at the Council of the European Union;
- a community instrument for exchanging evidence was to complement the European arrest warrant;
- the European Network of Supreme Courts was to be complemented by a Network of Supreme Courts dealing with administrative matters;
- an ambitious programme would be developed for judicial training, particularly in-service training for members of the judiciary; a recent communication from the European Commission on judicial training called for more exchanges between members of the judiciary to encourage the development of a European judicial culture.
Mr FRATTINI stressed that it was important to develop the quality of justice, partly through mutual recognition of judicial decisions, generated by stronger mutual trust between judicial systems and its players in Europe. In this respect, work to evaluate judicial systems was essential to achieve the level of quality of public service in the justice field to which European citizens were entitled. If such evaluations were objective and impartial, they were compatible with the fundamental principle of the independence of judges.
As with human rights protection, he indicated that it was necessary to avoid duplication between the work of the European Commission and the CEPEJ in the evaluation of justice systems, while ensuring ongoing cooperation that would enable the European Commission to benefit from CEPEJ activities geared to improving the quality of service in the sphere of justice. The CEPEJ report on the evaluation of European judicial systems was a fundamental contribution, on which the European Commission would draw in negotiations with future European Union candidate States.
Mr FRATTINI wished to be able to consult the CEPEJ on a regular basis and indicated that CEPEJ's activities would be explicitly mentioned in the European Commission Communication on the evaluation of justice to be published at the end of the year. The European Commission would set up a Forum on the quality of justice, in which the CEPEJ would be invited to sit. He was in favour of this cooperation between the CEPEJ and the European Commission being given tangible form in a specific agreement, possibly via an exchange of letters.
The CEPEJ reiterated its great willingness to fully cooperate with the competent institutions of the European Union and instructed the Secretariat to continue talks with the European Commission so that this cooperation could be given tangible form.
The representative of the European Committee on Legal Cooperation (CDCJ) also stressed the importance of cooperation between the Council of Europe and the European Union, along the lines called for in the Report presented by the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, Mr Jean-Claude JUNCKER, to the Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe's member States: "Council of Europe – European Union: One ambition for the European continent". However, within that cooperation, the Council of Europe had to preserve the working methods that gave it its specific character.
On behalf of the outgoing and current Presidencies of the European Union, the CEPEJ members in respect of Austria, Mr Georg STAWA, and Finland, Mr Kari KIESILAINEN, reviewed the situation and outlined the prospects in the judicial field within the European Union. The main points of their statements are set out in Appendix IV to the present report. The CEPEJ congratulated the Austrian authorities on their Presidency and wished the new Finnish Presidency every success.
The Chair of the CEPEJ said that the "E-justice and e-law" Congress organised in Vienna (31 May - 2 June 2006) under the Austrian presidency of the European Union with the close involvement of the Council of Europe and the CEPEJ had been very well run and of major interest. The Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe and the Chair of the CEPEJ had been involved in opening the event.
The CEPEJ stressed the importance of developing information technologies for the efficiency of judicial systems and instructed its Bureau to propose suitable follow-up, in keeping with its medium-term work programme.
A tour-de-table was held, allowing each participant to describe the initiatives to be pursued at national level for European Day of justice. Most member States were planning to celebrate the European day through events organised mainly by judicial institutions. The Secretariat reminded the participants to notify it of these initiatives as quickly as possible so that they could be featured on the CEPEJ website.
The participants were also asked to indicate whether institutions in their countries would be submitting entry files for the "Crystal Scales of Justice" European Prize for innovative practice contributing to the quality of civil justice. Several of them stated that files were being prepared. The Secretariat told the CEPEJ that the Prize would be awarded jointly by the European Commission and the Council of Europe at the French Court of Cassation (Paris, 26 October 2006) at the occasion of the 8th Conference of Presidents of European Supreme Courts. The members of the CEPEJ and the judicial institutions of the member States were invited to send in entry files for the award to the Secretariat by 31 August 2006.
The Secretariat informed the CEPEJ that the next conference organised jointly by the Council of Europe and the European Commission would take place in the first quarter of 2007 and focus, through concrete case studies, on the relation between efficiency and fairness of justice.
4. 2005 Activity Report of the CEPEJ
The draft 2005 activity report, prepared by the Bureau, was presented by the CEPEJ member in respect of Latvia, Mrs Alia BRANTA.
The CEPEJ stressed that these activities had to be publicised as widely as possible, so that justice practitioners had access to them. In this connection, the Secretariat invited the CEPEJ members to provide national e-mailing lists that would enable it to send out this information to the individuals concerned in member States.
The Representative of the CDCJ congratulated the CEPEJ on the activities presented in the Report.
The CEPEJ approved the 2005 Activity Report of the CEPEJ (CEPEJ (2006) 3) and decided to forward it to the Committee of Ministers for approval. The Chair of the CEPEJ said that he would present the Report to the Ministers' Deputies in autumn, in accordance with the Statute of the CEPEJ.
5. Report on European judicial systems – Edition 2006
The Chair of the CEPEJ Working Group for the evaluation of judicial systems (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL), Mr Jean-Paul JEAN, and the scientific expert, Mrs Ana-Maria FALCONI, presented the draft Report on European judicial systems – Edition 2006.
The CEPEJ praised the excellent work jointly carried out by the members of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL[1], the scientific expert and the Secretariat and warmly thanked them for the efforts devoted to this exercise within a tight timeframe. The experts pointed out that the work schedule should be revised for future reports.
The experts emphasised the strong involvement and high quality of work of the national correspondents, who had met in Strasbourg on 22 and 23 May 2006 to help prepare the draft report and been involved in extensive exchanges to check data.
They noted that the report, covering 45 European States, was a real step forward from the pilot exercise, now making it possible to stabilise a body of key data in ensuing work. Mr JEAN said that the CEPEJ now had a comparative database that was unique in the world, providing data that could be used and accessed directly to identify real trends. The number of fields and countries coveredmade this exercise part of a regular process geared to progressively establishing a core of key quantitative and qualitative data, which would be gathered and processed similarly in all member States.
The experts said that the evaluation scheme could be considered as broadly stabilised, though certain points should be worked on:
- information on population density might be useful for evaluating the geographical distribution of courts,
- salaries would have to be shown in both gross and net forms in future, by finding solutions to the issues of taxation, social contributions etc,
- the explanatory note and question might be used to more closely specify the different categories of court staff who were not judges,
- the questions concerning indicators for measuring courts' performance could be developed.
The experts also referred to certain technical difficulties in presentation that they had encountered. They had chosen to use diagrams to put certain data into perspective, for example, which meant that countries were placed in order; however, not all the countries were comparable and close attention had to be paid to the comments when reading and interpreting the diagrams. The experts had been mindful of this sensitive issue of comparability of data throughout the report.
The experts said that changing one single data item could result in substantial work involving several tables and databases and reiterated the need for maximum data stability and accuracy from the outset. In this connection, they recommended careful reading of both the questions themselves and the information contained in the explanatory note to ensure homogeneity of data to be processed.
They said that it had not been possible, at this stage of the evaluation process, to analyse all the qualitative data supplied in-depth; this information provided a valuable base for additional analyses at a later date.
The CEPEJ examined the draft report section by section. The experts and the Secretariat took note of the various amendments suggested. The experts explained inter alia the thinking behind the progressive approach to presenting the budgets allocated to the judicial system, which aimed to include as many countries as possible while taking account of the fact that the data supplied by those countries were not homogeneous.
After examining the report, the CEPEJ adopted,in line with the Action plan of the 3rd Summit of Heads of State and Government and its statute, the "Report on European judicial systems – Edition 2006 " (CEPEJ (2006) 4 Rev):
- subject to the amendments proposed during the meeting and the written comments sent by the delegations to the Secretariat by 11 July 2006 being taken into account,
- while instructing the Secretariat to re-read the document to ensure coherency of the texts and their translation,
- while instructing the experts of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL, under the authority of the CEPEJ Bureau, to supply additional comments making the statistical data presented in the report easier to read and understand by the end of August 2006.
The CEPEJ decided to forward the finalised report to the Committee of Ministers as soon as possible so that the latter could take note of it.
The CEPEJ decided that the Report would remain confidential until the Committee of Ministers had taken note of it and asked all the members and observers to strictly comply with this rule of confidentiality so as to ensure the relevance and coherence of the publication by the Council of Europe.
In addition, to assist readers, including the media, in understanding and correctly interpreting the report, the CEPEJ instructed the experts of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL to prepare a summary. The participants agreed that the summary should cover the following aspects among others:
- budgets allocated to judicial systems,
- legal aid,
- IT resources of courts,
- justice professionals,
- users of the judicial system.
It would also focus on the issue of comparability of data.
The summary would be published at the same time as the report.
The Secretariat notified the CEPEJ that the Report would be submitted to the Committee of Ministers by the end of August, so that it could be examined immediately after the summer break. It was then proposed to present it at a press conference. The Report would go on-line on the CEPEJ website and be published. The CEPEJ instructed the Secretariat to organise appropriate publication and distribution of the report once the Committee of Ministers had taken note of it.
The CEPEJ decided to publish all the individual replies from the member States to the evaluation scheme in full on its website. Each delegation was invited to check that the national replies appearing on the restricted site of the CEPEJ had been duly updated and, where necessary, to send a consolidated version of the replies to the Secretariat by 15 September 2006. It was agreed that any State not wishing its replies to be published could lodge a request in this respect by 15 September 2006.
The experts stressed that the evaluation exercise had to be followed up, particularly in this data stabilisation and gathering phase. They said that the evaluation exercise should be repeated every two years. The CEPEJ agreed to return to this question at its 8th plenary meeting.
The CEPEJ agreed, in accordance with its medium-term activity programme, to pursue the analysis of the facts and figures presented in the report. It approved the proposal of the experts of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL to make the data available for use to researchers wishing to benefit from the official scientific support of the CEPEJ. The practical arrangements for this partnership would have to be established by the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL, under the authority of the CEPEJ Bureau.
6. Network of CEPEJ Pilot courts
The CEPEJ member in respect of Ireland, Mr Ciaran KELLY, reported on the meeting held to set up the Network of CEPEJ Pilot courts in Bucharest (5-6 April 2006) with the CEPEJ-TF-DEL within the framework of the Romanian chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers[2].
The CEPEJ thanked the Ministry of Justice and the High Council of Justice of Romania for their support in setting up the Network.
The Secretariat said that the pilot courts had been asked to fill in "identity sheets" setting out their procedures and working methods, for use by the experts responsible for preparing the Compendium of good practices envisaged under the CEPEJ Framework Programme on judicial timeframes.
The CEPEJ agreed to cooperate closely and regularly with the Network to ensure that its work remained in line with the concrete reality of the day-to-day functioning of judicial systems.
7. Implementation of the Framework Programme: "A new objective for European judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe"
The Chairman of the CEPEJ Task Force on judicial timeframes (CEPEJ-TF-DEL), Mr Alan UZELAC (Croatia), presented the Task Force's progress. The Task Force had taken part in the Conference on "Remedies for unduly lengthy proceedings: a new approach to the obligations of Council of Europe member states" organised by the Venice Commission in Bucharest (3 April).
The CEPEJ-TF-DEL would submit the following at the 8th plenary meeting of the CEPEJ:
- a report on the situation of judicial timeframes in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, prepared by Mrs Françoise CALVEZ (France),
- a report on time-management in the courts of the countries of Northern Europe, prepared by Mrs Mikra SMOLEJ (Finland) with the assistance of experts from Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, coordinated by Mr Jon JOHNSEN (Norway); this activity was receiving substantial funding from the Finnish Ministry of Justice.
The CEPEJ-TF-DEL would also submit at the next plenary meeting of the CEPEJ a Compendium of good practices making it possible to implement the Lines of Action of the CEPEJ Framework-Programme on judicial timeframes. This was currently being prepared by MM Marco FABRI and Francesco CONTINI (Italy).
Several delegations said that the Time-management Checklist adopted by the CEPEJ in 2005 on the basis of work by its Task Force was very useful for courts. They stressed the need to translate this concrete tool in the different countries so that it could be used as widely as possible. The CEPEJ invited the member States to pursue their efforts to translate and disseminate this practical tool.
8. Assessment of the impact of the Recommendations of the Committee of Ministers on mediation
The CEPEJ member in respect of the Czech Republic, Mrs Ivana BORZOVA, reported on the work of the CEPEJ Working Group on mediation (CEPEJ-GT-MED), which had held its first meeting in March 2006. The GT-MED had issued to 16 Council of Europe member States considered as representing the situation of mediation in Europe with a questionnaire aimed at assessing the impact of Council of Europe instruments in the mediation field and more generally the situation of mediation in those countries. The questionnaire was aimed primarily at the bodies (private or public) in those countries competent in the area of mediation, the CEPEJ members having been asked to provide the Secretariat with those bodies' details.
The CEPEJ thanked the States which had provided the replies requested and asked the States which had not yet done so to reply as soon as possible.
Mrs BORZOVA added that the questionnaire on Council of Europe instruments in the mediation field and the use of mediation procedures was posted on the CEPEJ website. The members of the CEPEJ were asked to encourage their respective countries' competent bodies to reply to it as soon as possible.
Mrs BORZOVA put forward several ideas for following up CEPEJ activities in the areas of training, publication of relevant instruments and documents, exchanges of good practices and training programmes for mediators.
9. Contribution of the CEPEJ to the functioning of the mechanisms for protecting human rights
Mrs Paola TONARELLI-LACORE, Lawyer at the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights, stated her views on the treatment of length of proceedings in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. She said that, in the Scordino vs. Italy judgment of 29 March 2006 and eight other rulings, the Court had explicitly referred to the work of the CEPEJ, mentioning inter alia the Framework Programme on judicial timeframes. The CEPEJ was trusted by the member States in its efforts to help improve the efficiency of judicial systems. She stressed that the CEPEJ could consider all problems relating to the functioning of justice, and not solely the questions raised before the European Court of Human Rights. It therefore had an important role to play in prevention and thereby a valuable contribution to reducing the Court's backlog. Her statement is set out in Appendix V to the present report.
Mr Mario REMUS, adviser to the Department for the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, Directorate General II – Human Rights, presented a pragmatic approach to the execution of the Court's judgments. To make indispensable improvements in the execution of the Court's judgments by the States and in particular to comply with their obligation to remedy the slowness of procedures, innovative solutions had to be implemented, in line with citizens' needs. In that context, the CEPEJ had to take a leading role. His statement is set out in Appendix V to the present report.
The representative of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, Mr Erik JURGENS, emphasised the need to improve the functioning of judicial systems through swifter procedures. He confirmed his backing for the efforts of the CEPEJ to contribute to these necessary changes, including in the Council of Europe's founder States.
The CEPEJ said that it would pursue its efforts to develop tools and general measures to facilitate the application of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and help improve the functioning of human rights protection mechanisms.
10. CEPEJ activities to assist the member States
The CEPEJ member in respect of the Russian Federation, Mr Yuri BERESTNEV, informed the Commission of developments in his country concerning the implementation of the CEPEJ report: "Examination of problems related to the execution of decisions by national civil courts against the State and its bodies in the Russian Federation" (CEPEJ (2005) 8). In particular, he pointed out that Budget Code reforms had entered into force at the beginning of 2006, the Federal bailiff service had been reorganised and steps had been taken to encourage the effective participation of courts in the execution of their decisions. He confirmed his authorities' wish to continue cooperating with the CEPEJ in this field. His statement is set out in Appendix VII to the present report.
The CEPEJ noted that a follow-up seminar on "Practical ways of combating delays in the justice system, excessive workloads of judges and case backlogs", concerning Croatia and Slovenia, would take place in Croatia in the second half of 2006.
11. Recent developments in the judicial field in the Council of Europe member States
The CEPEJ agreed to postpone this item to its 8th plenary meeting.
12. Other business
In response to the request lodged by the Consultative Council of European Prosecutors (CCPE) at its constituent meeting (Moscow, 5 – 6 July 2006), forwarded by the Director general of legal affairs, the CEPEJ decided to invite the CCPE to participate in its plenary meetings as an observer.
In response to the request received by the CEPEJ Secretariat from the European Network of Judicial Training (ENJT) on 27 June 2006, the CEPEJ decided to grant observer status, for a two-year period, renewable, to the ENJT.
Appendix I
agenda
Opening of the meeting
Adoption of the agenda
Welcoming address by Mr. Clemente MASTELLA, Minister of Justice of Italy
Information by the President of the CEPEJ and the Secretariat
Relations between the CEPEJ and the European Union
Exchange of views with Mr Franco FRATTINI, Vice-President of the European Commission, in charge of Justice, Liberties and Security
Welcoming addresses by G. DE VEL, Director General of Legal Affairs and E. DESCH (Germany), President of the CEPEJ
Report by A. POTOCKI (France), Vice-President of the CEPEJ
Intervention by F. FRATTINI, Vice-President of the European Commission, in charge of Justice, Liberties and Security
Discussion with the CEPEJ
Last developments within the European Union in the judicial field
4th edition of the European Day of Civil justice and 2nd edition of the European Prize: "The Crystal Scales of Justice
Joint Conference Council of Europe – European Commission
2005 Activity Report of the CEPEJ: discussion in view of its adoption
Report on European judicial systems – Edition 2006
Presentation by A.-M. FALCONI, Scientific expert
Discussion of the Report in view of its adoption
Communication strategy
CEPEJ Network of Pilot Courts
First meeting of the Network, Bucharest, 5 – 6 April 2006
Perspectives for the cooperation between the Network and the CEPEJ
Implementation of the Framework-Programme: "A new objective for European judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe": presentation of the ongoing works of the CEPEJ-TF-DEL
Assessment of the impact of the Recommendations of the Committee of Ministers on mediation: work of the CEPEJ-GT-MED
Contribution of the CEPEJ to the functioning of the mechanisms for protecting human rights
Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights
Introduction to several cases regarding timeframes of proceedings (including Scordino v. Italy - 29 March 2006) - P. TONARELLI-LACORE, Lawyer at the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights
The point of view of the Department for the execution of judgements of the ECHR - M. REMUS, Directorate General II – Human Rights
Assistance activities of the CEPEJ to member States
Implementation of the CEPEJ Report: "Examination of problems related to the execution of decisions by national civil courts against the state and its bodies in the Russian Federation"
Information on other initiatives
Recent developments in the judicial field in the Council of Europe member states
Any other business
Appendix II
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS / LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS
CEPEJ Members / Membres de la CEPEJ
ALBANIA/ALBANIE : apologised / excusée
ANDORRA/ANDORRE
Carme OBIOLS, Secrétaire Générale, Conseil supérieur de la Justice, ANDORRE LA VIEILLE
ARMENIA/ARMENIE
Armen SANOYAN, Chief Specialist, Department of international Legal Affairs, Ministry of Justice, YEREVAN
AUSTRIA/AUTRICHE
Georg STAWA, Judge assigned to the Minister of Justice, Federal Ministry of Justice, VIENNA
AZERBAIJAN/AZERBAIDJAN
Ramin GURBANOV, Senior Adviser, Department of Organisation and Analysis, Ministry of Justice, BAKU
Sabina ISKENDEROVA
BELGIUM/BELGIQUE
Claude CHERUY, Directeur de l’Organisation judiciaire, Ministère de la Justice, BRUXELLES - apologised / excusé
Dietger GEERAERT, Attaché Service Juridique, Ministère de la Justice, BRUXELLES
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA/BOSNIE-HERZEGOVINE
Ljiljana FILIPOVIĆ, Judge, Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council BiH, SARAJEVO
Mersudin PRUZAN, Deputy Disciplinary Prosecutor, Office of the Disciplinary Prosecutor, High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council of BiH, SARAJEVO
Adis HODZIC, Head of the Budget and Statistics Department, Secretariat High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council of BiH, SARAJEVO
BULGARIA/BULGARIE
Galina TONEVA-DACHEVA, Judge at the Sofia Appellate Court, SOFIA
CROATIA/CROATIE
Alan UZELAC, Ph.D. Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb, ZAGREB – Member of the CEPEJ Bureau / Member du Bureau de la CEPEJ
CYPRUS/CHYPRE
Loukis SAVVIDES, Ex-Judge of the Supreme Court of Cyprus – Legal Consultant, LIMASSOL
CZECH REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
Ivana BORZOVÁ, Head, Department of Civil Supervision, Ministry of Justice, PRAGUE
DENMARK/DANEMARK
Klaus Rugaard, Chief Adviser, Documentation and analyses, Danish Court Administration, COPENHAGEN
ESTONIA/ESTONIE
Margus SARAPUU, Deputy Secretary General on Court Administration, Ministry of Justice, TALLINN
FINLAND/FINLANDE
Kari Samuli KIESILĀINEN, Head of Department, Directorate General, Ministry of Justice, HELSINKI
FRANCE
André POTOCKI, Conseiller à la Cour de cassation, PARIS - Vice Chair of the CEPEJ/Vice-Président de la CEPEJ
GEORGIA/GEORGIE
Eka TKESHELASHVILI, Chairperson of the Court of Appeal, TBILISI
GERMANY/ALLEMAGNE
Eberhard DESCH, Head of Division of International Law, Federal Ministry of Justice, BERLIN, Chair of the CEPEJ/Président de la CEPEJ
Matthias HEGER, Chef du Service de Procédure civile internationale, Ministère fédéral de la justice, BERLIN
Gabriele MORAWITZ, Chef du bureau, Ministère de la Justice, DÜSSELDORF
GREECE/GRECE
Michael VRONTAKIS, Vice-Président du Conseil d’Etat, ATHENES - apologised / excusé
HUNGARY/HONGRIE
Gabor SZEPLAKI-NAGY, Conseiller Référendaire à la Cour Suprême de Hongrie, Directeur du Bureau des Droits de l’Homme à la Cour Suprême de Hongrie, BUDAPEST
ICELAND/ISLANDE
Anna Sigridur ARNARDOTTIR, Legal Expert, Ministry of Justice and Ecclesiastical Affairs, REYKJAVIK
IRELAND/IRLANDE
Ciaran KELLY, Principal Registrar High Court, Courts Service, Four Courts, DUBLIN -
Member of the CEPEJ Bureau / Member du Bureau de la CEPEJ
David FENNEL, Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, DUBLIN - apologised / excusé
ITALY/ITALIE
Fausto DE SANTIS, Directeur Général au sein du Bureau de l’organisation judiciaire, Ministère de la Justice, ROME
LATVIA/LETTONIE
Ilona BEIERBAHA, Director of the Court Administration, RIGA
Aija BRANTA, Judge of the Constitutional Court, RIGA
Inese KALNINA, Executive Director of the Court Administration, Representative for Judicial System in CEPEJ
Agnida KARLSONE, Head of Public Relations Division of the Court Administration
LIECHTENSTEIN
LITHUANIA/LITUANIE
Laima GARNELIENE, Head of Criminal Cases Division of the Lithuanian Court Appeal, Lietuvos Apeliacinis teismas, VILNIUS
LUXEMBOURG
Yves HUBERTY, Attaché de Gouvernement, Ministère de la justice, LUXEMBOURG-KIRCHBERG
MALTA/MALTE
Raymond ZAMMIT, Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs, MALTA - apologised / excusé
MOLDOVA
Lilia GRIMALSCHI, Chef adjoint de Direction, Ministère de la Justice, CHISINAU
MONACO
Jean CURRAU, Assistant référendaire près de la Cour d’Appel, MONTE CARLO
NETHERLANDS/PAYS‑BAS
Frans van der DOELEN, Head of the Strategy and Development Unit, Strategy Department for the Administration of Justice, THE HAGUE
NORWAY/NORVEGE
Merethe Baustad RANUM, Senior legal adviser, Judicial Department, National Court Administration, Domstoladministrasjonen, TRONDHEIM
POLAND/POLOGNE
Cezary Dziurkowski, Judge, Counsellor to the Minister of Justice, Department of Judicial Assistance and European Law, Ministry of Justice, WarSaw
PORTUGAL
João ARSENIO DE OLIVEIRA, Conseiller juridique, Bureau de la Politique législative et du Plan, Ministère de la Justice, LISBONNE
ROMANIA/ROUMANIE
Vasilica-Cristi DANILET, Juge, Conseiller du Ministre de la justice, Ministère de la Justice, BUCAREST
Angela Harastasanu, judge and member of the Superior Council of Magistracy, BUCHAREST
Alina Prelipcean, judge and head of the International Relations Office within the Superior Council of Magistracy, BUCHAREST
THE RUSSISAN FEDERATION/FEDERATION DE RUSSIE
Yury BERESTNEV, Senior State Legal Advisor, State Legal Directorate of the President of the Russian Federation (GGPU), MOSCOW
SAN‑MARINO/SAINT MARIN
SERBIA /SERBIE
Vladimir DAVIDOVIC, Head of Department for International Cooperation and European Integration, Ministry of Justive, BELGRADE
SLOVAK REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE SLOVAQUE
Igor BELKO, Judge, Supreme Court, BRATISLAVA
SLOVENIA/SLOVENIE
Marko SORLI, Vice President of the Supreme Court, LJUBLJANA
SPAIN/ESPAGNE
Elsa GARCIA-MALTRAS DE BLAS, Procureur, Conseillère à l’Unité d’entraide, Direction Générale des Relations avec l’Administration de la Justice, MADRID
Eduardo PERDIGUERO, member of the Spanish General Council of the Judiciary, MADRID
SWEDEN/SUEDE
Johan SANGBORN, Deputy Director, Division for Procedural Law and Court Issues, Ministry of Justice, STOCKHOLM
SWITZERLAND/SUISSE
Jacques BUEHLER, Secrétaire Général suppléant, Tribunal fédéral suisse, LAUSANNE
"THE FORMER YOUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA" / "L'EX-REPUBLIQUE YOUGOSLAVE DE MACEDOINE"
Nada PENOVA, State Adviser, Ministry of Justice, SKOPJE
TURKEY/TURQUIE
Selda SAYGI, Investigative Judge, Minsitry of Justice, ANKARA
UKRAINE
Oleksiy PEREVEZENTSEV, Chief Advisor, Secretariat of the President of Ukraine, Foreign Policy Directorate, KYIV
Olesya BARTOVSHCHUK, Head of Civil and Commercial Proceedings, Division of the Office of the Government Agent before the European Court of Human Rights, KYIV
UNITED KINGDOM/ROYAUME‑UNI
Deirdre BOYLAN, Policy Officer, European and International Policy Division, Department for Constitutional Affairs, LONDON
John STACEY, Head of Civil and Family Procedure Branch, Customer Services Directorate, The Court Service HQ, LONDON
***
ITALIAN DELEGATION / DELEGATION D’ITALIE
Clemente Mastella, Ministre de la Justice
Luigi LI GOTTI, Secrétaire d’Etat, Ministère de la Justice
Luigi MANCONNI, Secrétaire d’Etat, Ministère de la Justice
Alberto MARITATI, Secrétaire d’Etat, Ministère de la Justice
Daniela MELCHIORRE, Secrétaire d’Etat, Ministère de la Justice
Luigi SCOTTI, Secrétaire d’Etat, Ministère de la Justice
***
OBSERVER STATES / ETATS OBSERVATEURS
HOLY SEE/SAINT-SIEGE
Maître Gianluigi MARRONE, Juge Unique, Tribunal de l’Etat de la Cité du Vatican, CITE DU VATICAN
JAPAN/JAPON : apologised / excusé
MONTENEGRO: apologised / excusé
***
EUROPEAN COMMISION / COMMISSION EUROPÉENNE
Franco FRATTINI, Vice-President of the European Commission, responsible for Justice, Liberties and Security, BRUSSELS
Lorenzo SALAZAR, Private of office of the Vice-President, BRUSSELS
Patrizia DE LUCA, Principal Administrator, Civil Justice, Directorate General Jutice, Freedom and Security, Unité C1, BRUSSELS
***
OBSERVERS / OBSERVATEURS
COUNCIL OF THE BARS AND LAW SOCIETIES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION / CONSEIL DES BARREAUX DE l’UNION EUROPEENNE (CCBE)
Jana WURSTOVA, Lawyer, Department for Education and Training, Czech Bar Association, PRAGUE 1, Czech Republic
EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION OF JUDGES / Association européenne des MAGISTRATS (EAJ)
Maja TRATNIK, President of the European Association of Judges (EAJ), Supreme Court of Slovenia, LJUBLJANA, Slovenia
EUROPEAN UNION OF RECHTSPFLEGER AND COURT CLERKS / UNION EUROPEENNE DES GREFFIERS DE JUSTICE (EUR)
Gabriele GUARDA, Greffier en chef, Tribunale, PADOVA, Italie
Roberto GALULLO, Greffier en chef, Procura della Repubblica, MILANO, Italie
Anna MANDARINO, Greffier en chef, Tribunale, BELLUNO, Italie
Jean-Jacques KUSTER, Greffier en chef, tribunal d'instance, STRASBOURG , France
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF BAILIFFS/UNION INTERNATIONALE DES HUISSIERS DE JUSTICE ET OFFICIERS JUDICIAIRES (UIHJ)
Leo NETTEN, 1er Vice Président, PARIS, France
Bernard MENUT, Secrétaire, 12, rue Nationale, MIRABEAU, France
EUROPEAN FEDERATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES/FEDERATION EUROPEENNE DES JUGES ADMINISTRATIFS
Rosa PERNA, Juge, Tribunal administratif de Naples, Italie
Antonio PLAISANT, Juge, Tribunal Administratif de Turin, Italie
MAGISTRATS EUROPEENS POUR LES DEMOCRATIES ET LES LIBERTES (MEDEL)
Miguel CARMONA RUANO, Président de MEDEL, Magistrat, Président de l'"Audiencia Provincial" de Séville, Espagne
THE HAGUE CONFERENCE OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW/CONFERENCE DE LA HAYE DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE : apologised / excusée
WORLD BANK / BANQUE MONDIALE : apologised / excusée
***
PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE / ASSEMBLEE PARLEMENTAIRE DU CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE
Erik JURGENS, Member of the 1st Chamber of the State General, 1st Vice-Chairperson of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, AMSTERDAM, The Netherlands
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS / COUR EUROPENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME
Paola TONARELLI-LACORE, Registry, European Court of Human Rights / Greffe de la Cour Européenne des Droits de l’Homme
EUROPEAN COMMITTEE ON LEGAL CO-OPERATION/COMITE EUROPEEN DE COOPERATION JURIDIQUE (CDCJ)
Edwin KILBY, Head of Civil Judicial Co-operation, European and International Division, Department for Constitutional Affairs, LONDON, United Kingdom
CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN JUGES/CONSEIL CONSULTATIF DE JUGES EUROPEENS (CCJE)
Raffaele SABATO, Président du CCJE, Magistrat, Tribunal de Naples, CASTELLAMMARE DI STABIA, Italie
EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR CRIMINAL PROBLEMS /COMITE EUROPEEN POUR LES PROBLEMS CRIMINELS (CDPC)
Claude DEBRULLE, Président du CDPC, Ministère de la Justice, Direction Générale de la Législation, des Libertés et des Droits fondamentaux, BRUXELLES, Belgique
STEERING COMMITTEE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS/COMITE DIRECTEUR POUR LES DROITS DE L’HOMME (CDDH): apologised / excusé
***
EXPERTS OF THE CEPEJ-EVAL
Fausto DE SANTIS, Directeur Général au sein du Bureau de l’organisation judiciaire, Ministère de la Justice, ROME, Italie
Elsa GARCIA-MALTRAS DE BLAS, Procureur, Conseillère à l’Unité d’entraide, Direction Générale des Relations avec l’Administration de la Justice, MADRID, Espagne
Hazel GENN, Professor of Socio-Legal Studies, Faculty of Laws, University College London, Bentham House, LONDON, United Kingdom : apologised / excusée
Beata Z. GRUSZCZYŃSKA, Institute of Justice, Ministry of Justice, WARSAW, Poland
Jean-Paul JEAN, Substitut général Cour d’Appel de Paris, Professeur associé à l’Université de Poitiers, Parquet Général, Palais de Justice, PARIS, France - Chair of the GT-EVAL / Président du GT-EVAL
Mikhail VINOGRADOV, Lawyer, State Legal Directorate of the President of the Russian Federation (GGPU), MOSCOW, Russian Federation
***
SCIENTIFIC EXPERT / EXPERTS CIENTIFIQUE
Ana Maria FALCONI, Chercheur auprès du Centre Maurice Halbwachs, rattachée au Centre National pour la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), à l'Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales (EHESS), à l'Ecole Normale Supérieure et à l'Université de Caen, France
***
SECRETARIAT- Fax: +33 3 88 41 37 43 - e-mail: [email protected]
DIRECTORATE GENERAL I – LEGAL AFFAIRS / DIRECTION GENERALE I - AFFAIRES JURIDIQUES
Guy DE VEL, Director General of Legal Affairs / Directeur Général des Affaires Juridiques
Stéphane LEYENBERGER, Secretary of the CEPEJ / Secrétaire de la CEPEJ
Muriel DECOT, Co-Secretary of the CEPEJ / Co-Secrétaire de la CEPEJ
Pim ALBERS, Special Advisor to the Secretariat of the CEPEJ / Conseiller Spécial auprès du Secrétariat de la CEPEJ
Elisabeth HEURTEBISE, Administrative Assistant / Assistante administrative
DIRECTORATE GENERAL II–HUMAN RIGHTS / DIRECTION GENERALE II–DROITS DE L’HOMME
Mario REMUS, Advisor to the Department for the execution of judgments of the Euroepan Court of Human Rights / Conseiller aupres du Service de l’exécution des arrêts de la Cour Européenne des Droits de l’Homme
Interpreters / Interprètes
Caroline CURTA-DI GIULIO
Chantal FAYOLLE
Appendix III
Exchange of views with Mr Franco FRATTINI, Vice-President of the European Commission
Introductory report by Mr André POTOCKI (France), Vice-Chair of the CEPEJ
Mr President,
I would like in turn to say how proud and pleased we are to see you here today. It is a great honour and a valuable opportunity for all the members of the CEPEJ to hear your views and dialogue with the man in charge of justice issues within the European Union.
We are deeply grateful for your presence among us here today.
We all know that the values of law provide the cement for European construction.
Two articles in our major texts show the way as regards the law and Europe. Curiously, they both bear the number 6!
- there is article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, which proclaims in its first paragraph that the Union is founded on the values of law. But that article also forges a powerful link between the European Union and the Council of Europe: its second paragraph stipulates that “the Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms”.
- the second article 6 steering our activities is of course in the European Convention on Human Rights. That text reiterates that law takes tangible form only if a judge is there to ensure its effective implementation.
It is this effectiveness of justice and means of assessing it in European States that lie at the heart of our activities.
For some years now, everyone with responsibilities in these fields has been aware that it is indispensable to introduce tools to accurately assess the state of judicial systems in Europe, the resources available to them and the quality of the services they provide.
The task is an immense and complex one.
Nearly four years ago the Council of Europe decided to take up that challenge, through the initiatives of the CEPEJ. Yesterday we adopted our second “report on European judicial systems”, and I think I can safely say that this document, drawn up every two years, is also regarded as a reference by those responsible for justice and those who study how it functions in Europe and beyond.
The European Commission and the European Parliament are also showing a very keen interest in measuring and improving the quality of justice. Studies have been carried out and statements have been made at the highest level. Major initiatives have been announced.
The World Bank too, after its “Doing business” programme, has realised that judicial systems need to be audited. It is now preparing a “Measuring justice” programme to that end.
Obviously, these different players are pursuing varying aims:
* for the Council of Europe, it is about helping to improve the judicial systems of its 46 member States, bringing and keeping them in line with the standards of the European Convention on Human Rights,
* for the European Union, this assessment is indispensable to establishing and maintaining mutual trust, without which there can be no free circulation of judicial decisions between its members.
We understand and respect these specific aims.
This shared interest in assessing judicial systems and improving the efficiency of justice is of course tremendously encouraging for our work.
However, given the closeness of our concerns, we should consider how to make this work best for us.
Firstly, we believe that in certain areas, despite our specific interests, joint discussion and activities could be mutually beneficial. We already do this but we should step up these efforts.
Secondly, assessing our countries' justice systems is not possible without the requests for information sent to the competent national authorities. If we do not take our respective activities into account, there is a risk of saturating the sources that provide our information; justice ministries in particular will become tired of receiving countless requests for information.
Finally, if we have a mass of tables, conclusions and studies drawn from different sources, the whole thing could become incomprehensible, for professionals but also and above all for our citizens.
In fact we believe that much could be gained from putting the activities of the CEPEJ and those of the European Commission into perspective.
You pointed out yourself, Mr President, that developing assessment machinery was an important challenge for the coming years. You even went so far as to say that the activities of the CEPEJ should be regarded as references and that synergies should be developed with the European Union.
We think it desirable, therefore, to draw the activities of the European Commission and the Council of Europe closer together.
We also believe that this is possible: it will need a gradual, steady approach, taking account of our different aims and specific features but if we really want to move forward together, we can devise new ways of working together.
Mr President,
your visit is a sign of recognition for the work already completed and makes us very proud. But it is also a sign of hope for the huge task ahead.
Thank you.
Appendix IV
Latest developments within the European Union in the judicial field
Reporters: G. STAWA (Austria) and K. KIESILAINEN (Finland)
on behalf of the outgoing and incoming presidencies of the European Union
Your Excellency, Mr. President, Dear colleagues,
Thank you very much for the opportunity to focus on the latest developments within the EU and especially in the judicial field.
Talking about the outgoing presidency I want to explain the goals, results, activities and experiences of the last six months. Kari will then tell us about the challenges facing the Finnish presidency.
Goals
The Austrian Presidency wanted to work on the following measures in particular in order to implement the priorities:
The aim of the Hague programme and its action plan in the area of justice is above all to improve the common capability of the EU and its Member States to guarantee fundamental rights, minimum standards for procedural safeguards and access to justice, to fight against cross-border organised crime and to repress the threat of terrorism. In addition, steps should be taken to develop further the mutual recognition of court decisions and documents, both in civil and criminal matters, and to remove legal and judicial obstacles in litigation in civil matters with cross-border implications. Such recognition is an efficient means with which to protect and implement citizens’ rights beyond European borders. For that reason, Austrian justice policy has been expressly supporting this approach.
The following does not cite all the relevant legal instruments but focuses on those areas to which Austria has given special priority.
Results
Civil law
Regulation on the introduction of a European order for payment procedure
The order for payment procedure, a simple procedure for speeding up the inexpensive enforcement of uncontested claims, has proved effective in Austria for many years now: the claimant fills out a form to lodge a complaint. The court then issues an order to pay. If the defendant does not raise any objections within a certain time against the order to pay issued by the court, the claimant is immediately granted an enforceable court decision. However, if the defendant disputes the claim, normal court proceedings follow.
The goal was to introduce a regulation which will speed up cross-border undisputed money-claims, to reduce costs of this procedure and to permit the acceptance (execution ability) of payment orders in all member states without any additional procedure.
Politically agreed in February, the regulation was accepted by the end of June in written procedure by the Member States.
Rome I
The Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations in cross-border cases dates from 1980. As the Treaty of Amsterdam made judicial cooperation in civil matters a matter of Community competence, the Convention has to be converted into a Community legal instrument (regulation). In doing so, provision should be made to ensure that courts throughout Europe apply the same substantive law to cross-border cases in which the parties have a contractual relationship.
Action has begun and will be continued by our Finnish colleagues.
Rome II
As for contractual obligations (Rome I), a legal instrument is also to be created for non-contractual obligations. Again, the objective in this area is to simplify application of the law in cases with cross-border implications in which the parties have not entered into a contractual relationship, such as claims resulting from road accidents. The plan was to make it easier to anticipate what law will be applied in individual cases and to ensure that each European court dealing with a case of this type passes judgment on the basis of the same legal system.
Politically agreed in April concerning the text of the regulation, the regulation as a whole accompanied by the reasons was accepted politically in June.
Regulation on the introduction of a European “Small-claims” procedure
As an alternative to existing procedures of the Member State, an easy, time-saving and cheap procedure should be introduced to obtain an enforceable decision for claims up to 2000 Euro.
The overall concept was finalised by the Ministers in June.
Revision of the European regulation of delivery of documents
The European regulation of delivery of court documentsentered into force on 31 May 2001. Its main goal is to make the delivery of documents (not only from courts) in civil and commercial matters easier and faster. The problems encountered (ie regulation of costs of the delivery) have been reviewed.
The overall concept was finalised by the Ministers in June.
Criminal law
Framework decision on the European enforcement order
Austria introduced this draft framework decision together with Sweden and Finland in 2005. In accordance with the basic principle of mutual recognition, the framework decision provides for the fundamental obligation to continue to enforce a custodial sentence or a detention order, imposed by a court in one State, on the part of the country of which the sentenced person is a national, in which he has permanent and legal residence, or with which he maintains other close ties.
This option aims, in particular, to improve resocialisation measures for convicted persons, since they can be implemented more easily and effectively in the country whose language the convicted person understands and with which he has close family ties.
Work has reached the stage where a successful conclusion of the topic should be possible under the Finnish presidency.
Decision on establishing a computerised system to exchange information on convictions
The aim was to link up the national criminal registers of the Member States to permit a permanent electronic exchange of information on foreign convictions. A fundamental obligation to record foreign convictions in the national criminal register would also have to be established. This would simplify and speed up computerised information exchanges between the Member States.
Action has begun and will be continued by our Finnish colleagues.
Framework agreement on taking account of convictions handed down in Member States in the course of new criminal proceedings
Convictions handed down during previous proceedings in another Member State should have the same legal effect as domestic convictions. However, it was not planned to introduce an obligation to take them into account. The aim was to avoid situations where EU citizens are treated differently merely because they have been convicted in different countries.
Action has begun and will be continued by our Finnish colleagues.
Regulation on storage of data
The aim is to harmonise Member States' regulation of the duty of providers of electronic communication services to store communication data in advance. It should be ensured that these data are available to investigate serious crimes.
A “general opinion” on this topic was reached by the Ministers in February.
Framework agreement on obtaining items, papers or data for use in criminal proceedings
The goal was to find an agreement to enable courts to obtain items, papers or data available in another Member State for use in criminal procedures as evidence. A special form was created for that purpose (“European order on evidence”).
A “general opinion” on this topic was reached by the Ministers in June.
Framework agreement on fighting organised crime
The goal was to adjust the criminal law of the Member States regarding the criminal offence of organised crime.
A “general opinion” on this topic was reached by the Ministers in April.
Agreements between the EU and Member States
Agreements between the EU and Iceland and Norway on extradition in criminal matters and
Denmark (use of regulation on responsible courts and execution of decisions in civil and commercial matters (“Brussels I” regulation) and regulation on delivery of documents in civil and commercial matters) were signed.
Preparing the EU's membership of the Hague conference of international private law
With the status of a formal member of the Hague conference of international private law the EU is able to use its competence in exterior affairs when it comes to judicial cooperation in civil matters.
The Council of Ministers has given its approval for membership of the Hague conference. The decision has been forwarded to the European Parliament for approval.
Decision on the programme of “Criminal justice” from 2007 – 2013 as part of the framework “Guarantees of law and justice”
The main goal is to promote and support judicial cooperation in criminal affairs.
A “general opinion” on this topic was reached by the Ministers in June.
Activities
IT Conference
The IT Conference 2006 e-Justice & e-Law – New IT-Solutions for Courts, Administration of Justice and Legal Information Systems – from 31 May to 2 June 2006 at the Hofburg in Vienna provided an overview of the trend-setting IT-standard applications as well as current trends in the development of IT-utilisation in the administration of justice in different countries. The legal information systems and the electronic publication of statutes was discussed in a separate section. After the introductory speeches by high representatives of the European Union, the Council of Europe and the Austrian Ministry of Justice, each half-day session examined a specific area of application. For a description of summary proceedings (under the title of “Solutions for payment order systems“), presentations from the UK, Germany and the European Union were given. The programme for the second day included "Automation of Court Procedures, Land Register, Companies Register, Court Publications – Edicts" and "Electronic Legal Communications". The area "Legal Information Systems, authentic publications and the processes of legislation" with a policy speech by Dr. Jon Bing from the Norwegian Research Centre for computers and Law completed the Conference. “Authentic publication of law and workflow of law making and other solutions for legal information systems” was also covered especially.
Over 400 participants from 30 countries followed the congress, and there were presentations from 12 countries (D, UK, NL, CH, Fin, Slo, S, Cro, USA, EE, I, F).
The event was organised by the Austrian Justice Services in cooperation with the European Union, the Council of Europe and the Austrian Federal Chancellery.
An exhibition gave the delegates an opportunity to talk to the respective experts and familiarise themselves in more detail with the various IT applications.
The multitude of presentations of cutting edge IT-solutions and the integration of states across the borders of the European Union provided a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the "Legal Information Technologies" in use. Together with the supporting program we hope that we made your stay in Vienna unforgettable.
Experiences
A great deal of work
Good and “real” experience of the EU and its work
Worth the input
Appendix V
The Grand Chamber judgments of 29 March 2006 and the Court's relations with the CEPEJ
Paola TONARELLI-LACORE, Registry of the European Court of Human Rights
Thank you, Mr Chairman, for inviting me to take the floor here today.
I will outline the Grand Chamber judgments of 29 March and then focus on the work of the CEPEJ before looking at possible collaboration between the Court and the CEPEJ.
I The principles stated by the Court
In its 9 judgments of 29 March 2006 the Court cited the principles emerging from its previous case-law to reiterate that the States are free to choose their means of action and have a margin for manœuvre but that it is for the Court to exercise final supervision of the effectiveness of a domestic remedy and all the more so where the application of its own case-law is concerned. The subsidiarity principle does not mean giving up all control in this area.
The Court's prime role cannot be to go on repeating the same points over and over again; the States have a duty to take action to meet their obligations and, in doing so, are free to choose which remedies to introduce in order to establish a violation, speed up procedures and/or award compensation.
If a State does not introduce remedies or introduces a remedy that does nothing to change the fact that applicants can still claim to be a "victim of a violation" - as the Court stated in its 9 judgments – the Court will be obliged to go on examining this type of application. While the Court does its best to handle an ever-growing workload, it is down to the States to help reduce the number of applications it receives by finding suitable solutions for recurring problems at national level.
In these judgments the Court reiterated that a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not sufficient in principle to eradicate their "victim" status unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for the breach of the Convention (Cocchiarella § 71), and added that the applicant’s ability to claim to be a victim will depend on the redress which the domestic remedy will have given (Cocchiarella § 73).
The Court has on many occasions acknowledged that remedies designed to expedite proceedings are “effective” insofar as they allow for a speedier decision by the court concerned (Cocchiarella § 74-75). Such a remedy offers an undeniable advantage over a remedy affording only compensation since it also prevents a finding of successive violations in respect of the same set of proceedings and does not merely repair the breach a posteriori, as does a compensatory remedy.
It is clear that a remedy affording only compensation has neither a preventive nor a curative effect where proceedings are still pending; to use a medical analogy, its sole benefit is to make the pill easier to swallow. And the more bitter the "pill" is made by lengthy proceedings, the more "sugar", or money, will be necessary.
As I know that the States always keep a close eye on their budget, I would say that the message to take from these judgments is that, even though the Court leaves States free to decide which remedies to introduce, if they wish to have fewer or no rulings against them, they must put the emphasis on expanding the gamut of possible remedies. The Court has stressed that the level of compensation depends on the characteristics and effectiveness of the domestic remedy (Cocchiarella §§ 96 and 97), the idea being to show more tolerance towards the States that make greater efforts and equip themselves with more effective systems than towards those that provide only a "minimum service".
Such remedies must also respect other requirements mentioned in these judgments, namely a reasonably fair procedure, itself a swift one, without excessive costs, awarding amounts not too far off those granted by the Court (with the amount varying according to the remedies made available) and above all executed promptly.
If those requirements are not complied with, applicants will again be in a position to claim that they are victims and the Court will rule on the violation of article 6, and possibly a second violation in cases where applicants are out of time to be able to resort to a domestic remedy again (as case-law in Italy was tending towards the assumption that a new remedy would be exempt from the anomalies of the previous one), as well as ruling on article 41.
On this point the Court was no more specific than the chambers, leaving States free to determine their calculation methods, provided that the amount ultimately awarded is reasonable in relation to the amount which the Court would have awarded in such a case, even though the calculation method differs from that of the Court.
Within the framework of article 41 the Court awarded the difference between the amount awarded at national level and the amount it would have regarded as reasonable, plus an amount for the second violation not found at national level and a further amount for the frustration resulting from non-execution.
These judgments provided a perfect and rare opportunity to recognise and encourage the work of the CEPEJ, as what had already been announced by the CEPEJ in its framework programme was confirmed by the Court in its judgments.
II Spotlight on the work of the CEPEJ
The framework programme mentioned in the 9 Court judgments was intended to draw attention to the wide-ranging brief assigned to the CEPEJ. The CEPEJ is still a very young body but it is trusted by the States, as the Warsaw summit showed.
The first reports produced by the CEPEJ, the drawing up of the questionnaire and all the initiatives set up have confirmed that the Commission is highly dynamic and a source of hope for the efficiency of justice if the countries are willing to turn to it and ask for assistance - as some have already done - and to follow its advice. The countries should not only give it the means to take action but also give themselves the means to collaborate effectively with it.
The experts of the CEPEJ will doubtless find solutions for all the countries experiencing problems in connection with article 6, though some solutions are obviously more costly than others, but it is important that those solutions are followed up by effects.
To draw a parallel with the Italian cases: what is the point of a Pinto law if the amounts due are not paid? Judges might have the best possible training and their decisions might conform perfectly with the Grand Chamber's judgments but the fact remains that the government must still ensure that there are no other failings having an impact on the work of the judges.
III The contributions of the CEPEJ to the work of the Court
Obviously, the work of the CEPEJ can have repercussions on the work of the Court and vice versa as judgments will highlight certain occasional, recurrent or systemic shortcomings. The number of violations found by country and by year make it possible to target those countries requiring priority treatment, for example, or, if the same issues are identified for different countries, to explore whether there is one solution applicable to all of them. That is why it is important that each country keeps an eye on the type of cases notified to it (and not only in connection with article 6) as well as the conclusions of the Court. To find a cure there must first be an accurate diagnosis. Article 6 is so wide-ranging that there is no miracle broad-spectrum antibiotic and to be sure of the treatment required, it must be known exactly which type of article 6 violation a country is suffering from. The only wonder-cure would be for a domestic remedy providing compensation to be available for whatever violation claimed, with the award of substantial amounts, but in the long term that would be more damaging to budgets than pin-pointing the problem and the right solution.
It goes without saying that all the improvements which the CEPEJ could make to the functioning of justice in the different States are bound to have repercussions for the Court's work in the fairly short term. So the more States turn to the CEPEJ, the more readily the solutions found can be applied in numerous countries and the easier the Court's work will be.
The reports prepared by the CEPEJ on the functioning of justice in the different countries can be useful in establishing whether the problems faced by the Court are just the tip of the iceberg or merely a bad patch experienced by a country during a restructuring phase. For that reason these reports will be read attentively, together with the likely follow-up reports concerning countries which have sought assistance from the CEPEJ, to see whether and how solutions have been applied and if there are tangible results.
The Court often finds that there have been violations in situations that now no longer exist, owing to the volume of applications that we have to deal with; it may be that you consider the situation and find that the problem no longer exists following a reform at national level, which is yet to take real effect in the court registry. It is possible that a report on a State having benefited from the assistance of the CEPEJ notes that the issue has been fully resolved on the whole, whereas the Court might rule that there has been a violation if a failing in the system results in violations in a particular case or set of cases or a solution applied to a problem reveals another underlying issue.
The work of the Court hinges on the information provided by lawyers whose level of training is unfortunately not always equivalent. In some countries, lawyers do not bring cases to us because they do not yet have a sufficient grasp of our case-law or of the official languages or because they do not have the time to engage in this type of procedure as they have more work than they can cope with at local level or they do not think it profitable enough. Some lawyers specialise in a type of complaint, such as length of proceedings, but have never looked into the question of execution, for example. It may be that problems exist in a given country but no applications have ever been made to the Court on that subject, whereas the CEPEJ, in assessing countries' judicial systems, will be able to pick up new issues and have a broader view of certain problems.
You are assisted by all the main players involved in judicial procedures and are therefore able to assess the situation of justice in the different countries from a different perspective.
Violations relating to article 6 of the Convention unfortunately account for a very high percentage of the violations found each year. This makes your task tough but vital and one that, hopefully in the near future, will enable the justice systems of all our countries to be so efficient that complaints under article 6 will become exceptions that confirm the rule.
Appendix VI
Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: a pragmatic approach
Mario Remus, Department for the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Usually one reads the judgments of the Court to examine its case law, to relate it with the domestic legal orders or to doctrine's analyse. There is also a lesser known approach, which is pragmatic and important, which consists in examining the judgments of the Court in view of their execution. Indeed, these judgments just like all other judgments have to be executed.
The Convention does not provide for an international police or international court bailiffs, it however foresees an execution procedure.
The Committee of Ministers supervises this procedure. It does so through specialised meetings where all member states participate in equal parity[3].
Each procedure is followed by the Department for the execution of judgments, in the Secretariat of the Council of Europe. It prepares the meetings of the Committee of Ministers and provides legal assistance.
All the final judgments are analysed, verifying that[4]:
the sum granted by the Court as just satisfaction is paid[5];
the persistent effects of the violation on the individual should be ended and cleared (for example, if there has been an unfair internal procedure the reopening of the case is requested)[6].
There exists no danger of repetition of similar violations; in cases where this is the case, the State is asked to take general measures to eradicate this danger.[7]
Repetitive cases: the problem of excessive length of proceedings, the specificity of the Italian cases.
Briefly: currently the total number of cases supervised by the Committee of Ministers is 5211.
2566, nearly half, concern Italy and among these cases 2183, concern excessive length of proceedings, which is 44% of the total of all Italian cases.[8]
Excessive length of proceedings, an international problem
Sometimes the problem of excessive length of proceedings raised 60% of judgments on the merit and concerns nearly half of the Member States. But it is not represented equally among the 46 States. Certain countries demonstrate the capacity to react, for example the Nordic countries, Germany, the United Kingdom, Ireland and the Netherlands. Other countries, which have indeed tried to find a solution, continue to be confronted with this problem. This is the case with Italy where the problem is “structural”[9], not only for the exceptional number of convictions, but also because it exists since very long.[10]
Some thoughts on the causes and the remedies
From the Italian side it must be said that the problem is very complex. In fact there has not been one clear cause identified, and even if it were found, it would not be very useful.[11]
We will not examine the causes and the remedies, but I would nevertheless like to draw your attention on three issues:
Each remedy has no absolute value in itself, nor does it always have given effects. A remedy which seems without any doubts efficient consists in increasing resources. But it is not true that in any case the resources can create an improvement in the procedures, for example in the criminal area[12]. Each remedy should be proportionate and adapted to its specific context, where the different effects fall within the jurisdiction according to particular circumstances.
Secondly: very good experiences exist at a regional level with finalised programmes. I am thinking about the agreements concluded within the context of certain pilot offices in France[13]. The judicial authorities engaged in reducing delays with extra resources in personnel and services; I also think about the Strasbourg project of the Turin tribunal in Italy, which has foreseen a differentiated handling of cases and the adoption of a series of rules for an improved daily management of cases. Among all these efforts I underline the importance of the method, that is to say the putting in place of an objective-oriented programme and the supervision of its development.
Finally, very interesting rules are being adopted in the United Kingdom. At the beginning of the code of consolidated procedures, they have introduced general rules as a guide to carrying out their jurisdiction[14]. In these rules, it is said that each case has to be treated by a fair examination. This notably implies:
To guarantee equality of the parties involved
To avoid high expenses
To ensure that each case is treated in a manner proportionate to the amount of the sum in question, to the importance of the case, to the complexity of the questions and to the financial situation of each of the parties.
To allocate an adequate part of the financial means of the jurisdiction keeping into account the necessity to keep resources for other cases.
The length of proceedings: a cultural problem?
The culture of a country has a role in its society, but also in particular in its judicial system. Thus, I think that is necessary to limit the field of action and to distinguish between general problems of the society and specific problems of organisation and the administration of justice. To be inclined towards litigation or to have a tolerance to injustice are the characteristics which can be better evaluated at the political level of that country.
In the specific area of justice, certain cultures can impede good reforms: certain jurists think that case law is an independent science whose only goal is to interpret its rules[15]. This type of culture forgets or underestimates the other sciences which concern the organisation of justice, notably, the science of statistics, economics, management and sociology.
Conclusion: the necessity of a new interdisciplinary and shared approach
The nature of the problem of the length of proceedings is very complex, there are no absolute remedies or panaceas and there is a cultural influence. In this situation, I think a solution could be found by testing new routes.
These should be pragmatic routes, which are interdisciplinary, taking into account territorial circumstances and with sufficiently flexible procedures.
These should be routes which are capable of valuing to the maximum capacity the management of justice procedures and of justice organisation, with a particular emphasis on citizens needs[16].
Appendix VII
Reply of the Russian Federation to the Report of the Group of Experts of the European Commission on the Efficiency of Justice on the Problems on Execution of Domestic Judicial Decision against spending units of the Budgetary System of the Russian Federation
Yuri BERESTNEV, Member of the CEPEJ in respect of the Russian Federation
The problem of execution of judicial decisions against the State treasury in the Russian Federation is not a purely internal one, as it appeared on the international level. In this connection, in December 2004 the Russian Federation turned to the European Commission on the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) for assistance in analysing the situation in this field in the light of the experience of other Member States of the Council of Europe.
With regard to a huge volume of cases pending before the European Court of Human Rights concerning non-execution of domestic judicial decisions against the treasury of the Russian Federation (it is to be noted that approximately 40 per cent of cases against Russia pending before the Court concern non-execution of judicial decisions by state authorities), the request was allowed. An expert group was formed to analyse this problem, and the official report was the result of this work. This document is not only of political value at present, but it is of importance in law, and its provisions are implemented in Russia's legislation and administrative practice.
It should be noted that the Budget Code of the Russian Federation was amended by adding Chapter 24.1 – “Execution of judicial acts on recovery of funds from the budgetary system of the Russian Federation. The new provisions came into force on 1 January 2006.
At present, the Federal legislation directly states that the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation and the Federal Bailiff’s Service are competent for enforcement and distinguishes their jurisdiction. The legislation stipulates the peculiarities of execution of judicial decisions against the treasury of constituent entities of the Russian Federation and the treasury of municipalities. Legal differentiation, which existed in respect of budgetary systems of different levels, became unified, and execution of such judicial acts is performed only by the relevant financial bodies.
The Budget Code of the Russian Federation stipulates two regimes of execution, depending on the subject matter of the original suit. The first one is as follows: If a judicial act was rendered in respect of unlawful actions (inaction) of state and local self-government bodies or of their officials, such acts are transmitted to the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, the respective constituent entity of the Russian Federation or the respective municipal body for execution, competence over execution is determined by Article 242.2.
The second regime concerns monetary obligations of budgetary institutions, in particular, execution of judicial acts against Federal budget institutions on recovery of funds from the Federal budget. Such judicial acts are enforced by the bodies of the Federal Treasury. The same order is applicable to the recovery of funds from regional and municipal budgets, and, accordingly, judicial acts are enforced by territorial bodies of the Federal Treasury.
On 14 March 2006 the Director of the Federal Bailiff’s Service issued an Order “On Organisation of Execution of Enforcement Documents on Recovery of Monetary Funds for the Budget System of the Russian Federation, as well as of Enforcement Documents on Recovery of Monetary Funds on Obligations of Budget Institutions”. This document obliges all chief bailiffs of constituent entities of the Russian Federation – heads of territorial branches of the Federal Bailiff Service to perform the following:
1. To form special divisions on coordination and control over forced execution of enforcement documents on recovery of monetary funds on obligations of Federal budget institutions, budget institutions of constituent entities of the Russian Federation and budget institutions of municipalities.
2. To form special groups on forced execution of enforcement documents on recovery of monetary funds on obligations of Federal budget institutions, budget institutions of constituent entities of the Russian Federation and budget institutions of municipalities.
3. To exercise special supervision over forced execution of enforcement documents on recovery of monetary funds on obligations of Federal budget institutions, budget institutions of constituent entities of the Russian Federation and budget institutions of municipalities.
Another aspect, which was highlighted by the experts of the CEPEJ and which was recommended to be reflected in law, is an effective participation of courts at the stage of enforcement proceedings on the category of cases under examination. The legal regime, which was in force by that time, assumed the responsibility of creditor to address to the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation with a request to initiate enforcement proceedings. The creditor was obliged to submit a package of documents, on the grounds of which the financial body considered the question of possibility to initiate enforcement proceedings on enforcement documents or to dismiss the request. The new version of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation provides an alternative: Article 242.1 § 2 provides a creditor with the right to decide whether he or she submits necessary documents to the financial body or it is the court which will do it. If a creditor needs assistance, he or she may turn to the court for help in drafting and submitting documents.
The necessity of a separate legal order of enforcement of judicial acts against budget institutions is noted in the recommendations of the experts of the CEPEJ. As from 1 January 2006 the Budget Code of the Russian Federation regulates the matters on recovery of monetary funds from recipients of public budgets. The two categories of actions under this item are described below.
The first category concerns actions on compensation of damage caused to a person (physical or legal) as a result of unlawful actions (omission) of public authorities. The Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation is responsible for enforcement of judicial acts on such actions.
The State strictly follows the position of subsidiary responsibility of the Chief Administrator of Federal budget funds, and, for this reason, enforcement of decisions on this category of actions will not remain unsatisfied.
A positive feature of the new mechanism of legal regulation is the provisions of Article 242.2 § 5, under which enforcement of judicial acts is carried out at the expense of assignations provided for this reason by a relevant budgetary law or decision (depending of the level of the budgetary system). If the amount of funds needed for execution of judicial acts exceeds these assignations, the relevant amendments to the unified budgetary list of items should be made. The legislation presumes that the amount of funds necessary for satisfaction of all judicial acts may be above the funds originally reserved for this aim, and, for this reason, the mechanism, by which necessary funds may be relocated, is stipulated.
A more complicated mechanism is provided for enforcement of judicial acts on monetary obligations of Federal budget institutions. The creditor himself or the court, following the creditor’s request, submits the same package of documents, as provided in the first variant of execution, to the Federal Treasury. However, as regards this situation, the legislation stipulates even more distinct procedure of actions of the Treasury, which prevents any possibility of unlawful actions or omission in the form of non-observance of the terms of enforcement.
According to the new legal regime, the Treasury is not limited by the frames of recovery in respect of budget funds of the debtor – budget institution. If a budget institution lacks funds for enforcement of a judicial act, it should execute it at the expense of its non-budgetary profits. However, there may be situations, when even these funds are not enough for execution. In this case, the budget institution should apply to its chief administrator or manager of budgetary funds with a request for allocation of additional assignation for budgetary obligations on account of further periods or for increase of financing for repayment on writs of execution.
It should be noted as an undoubtedly correct decision to enact a rule, which existed previously only on the level of by-laws, according to which the Federal Treasury has a right to freeze the debtor’s transactions on its accounts, if the debtor breaches its obligation on timely satisfaction of monetary claims. It might be considered as the strictest sanction, which can be applied in respect of a budget institution: the entire economic activity of the institution is blocked, until it repays the debts on writs of execution. As the practice shows, budget institutions find funds for satisfaction of judicial acts under this sanction. At this, the Federal Treasury may stay operations of the debtor for the term of up to three months. As the practice shows, the longest period of stay, which faced a budget institution, was 83 days, after which it found funds and repaid the debt under judicial act. It should be noted, as well, that, as regards this situation, the legislation preserved subsidiary responsibility of the chief administrator of budgetary funds in respect of budget institutions.
A positive reflection of new order is the fact that at present a body of the Federal Treasury forwards the execution document with a mark on the amount of money transferred to the creditor to the court, which issued the execution document. A similar order is provided for the regional and municipal level of budget system (Articles 242.4 and 242.5 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation).
The experts of the CEPEJ noted that certain Russian judges lack due knowledge of financial legislation, which hampers effective enforcement of judicial acts against the State treasury. However, for realisation of this recommendation, we have all the necessary substantive and intellectual facilities. When implementing this document of the CEPEJ, the legislator pays extra attention to raising the level of expertise of the judiciary. At present, with regard to this recommendation, the Russian Academy of Law of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation adjusted its curriculum on raising the level of skills for bailiff service officers and training of jurists within the framework of general education. New special disciplines dispensing knowledge in the sphere of budgetary legislation and peculiarities of execution of judicial acts against the State treasury were added.
In the light of the recommendation of the experts of the CEPEJ, the Legal Department of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation has drafted registers of all writs of execution, verified their validity and launched an effective system of enforcement of these writs of execution.
Another important recommendation of the experts of the CEPEJ is to reduce as far as possible the enforcement of judicial acts due to reduce of disputes coming before the courts and develop alternative ways of resolving disputes with the participation of the State. It should be noted that such procedures are currently being developed in Russia, and they will be surely implemented in administrative practice.
One of the next recommendations of the experts of the CEPEJ concerns the ways of reserving monetary funds by the State for repayment on writs of execution. The experts draw attention to the fact that payments on judicial decisions are obligatory State expenses, and, for this reason, debts on judicial decisions should be repaid regardless of any budgetary limitations. Russian legislation always treated debts on judicial decisions as such forms of expenditure, and, at present, this category of expenditure is not covered by the regime of budgetary immunity.
An important recommendation of the experts of the CEPEJ concerns the necessity of creation of a special Federal Fund, which would satisfy the claims in respect of the budget system of the Russian Federation. At present, this question is under examination by Russian scientists and experts.
[1] . Pim ALBERS, Senior Policy Advisor, Strategy Department for the Administration of Justice, Ministry of Justice, Netherlands (Chair in 2005),
. Jean-Paul JEAN, Prosecutor, Court of Appeal of Paris, Associate professor at Poitiers University, France (Chair in 2006),
. Fausto DE SANTIS, Director General in the Bureau of Judicial organisation, Ministry of Justice, Italy,
. Elsa GARCIA-MALTRAS DE BLAS, Prosecutor, Legal adviser, Directorate general of international judicial cooperation, Ministry of Justice, Spain,
. Hazel GENN, Professor of Socio-Legal Studies, Faculty of Laws, University College London, United Kingdom,
. Beata Z. GRUSZCZYŃSKA, Institute of Justice, Ministry of Justice, Poland,
. Mikhail VINOGRADOV, Law specialist, Directorate of Legal Affairs under the President of the Russian Federation (GGPU), Russian Federation,
. Katarzyna GRZYBOWSKA, Administrator, JLS.C-3 Citzenship and fundamental rights, Directorate-General Justice, Freedom and Security, European Commission (observer).
The group also received valuable input from Mr Jean HUBER, Law trainee at the National College of the Judiciary, France, and Mr Julien LHUILLIER, Researcher at the Faculty of Law, Nancy 2, France.
[2] The meeting report is set out in document CEPEJ (2006) 2.
[3] The Permanent Representatives and/or frequently their legal experts, participate 6 times a year at the Human Rights meetings of the Committee.
[4] This three-side control of the execution is contained in Rule No. 6 for supervising the execution of judgments and the terms of the friendly settlements.
[5] According to Article 41 of the Convention, “if the Court declares that there has been a violation of the Convention or its protocols, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Parties do not rectify only partially the consequences of this violation, the Court accords to the injured party, if there is the place, a friendly settlement”. The obligation is executed directly.
[6] It is the individual measures requested from the Member States on the basis of Article 46 of the Convention.
[7] The measures usually requested are legislative reforms or legal or administrative changes, on the basis of article 46 of the Convention. But it has been said that the legal basis will be Article 1 of the Convention together with Article 3 of the Statute of the Council of Europe.
[8] The data is referred to the Human Rights meeting which is taking place 4-5 July 2006.
[9] See Krzysztof Drzewicki, Workshop on the improvement of domestic remedies organised by the Polish Presidency, Strasbourg 28 April 2005.
[10] Over these years reforms have been adopted by Italy in the civil and penal areas. The Committee had accepted these reforms putting an endto the supervision notably with Resolution DH(92) 54 in the Frau case (criminal proceedings) and Resolution DH (95)82 in the Zanghi case (civil proceedings). However, the insufficiency of the reforms adopted was quickly felt. In 1997, in the framework of a large group of Italian cases, the Committee adopted a resolution by which it declared that the “the slowness of the justice system represents an important danger, notably for the respect of the State of law” and decided to examine with more attention the effectiveness of new general measures and their impact (Interim Resolution DH(97)336). The Committee followed the execution of judgments of these cases – see Intermediate Resolutions DH (99)436, DH (99) 437 and DH (2000) 135, this last one has put in place a procedure of annual reports.
[11] The high workload could be linked to the progressive strengthening of the "Third Power" and the growth of certain areas brought before the justice system (for example in relation to urban development, pollution, social services, work).
[12] Please see the commentary of Marco Fabri “procedures for fair legal proceedings of reasonable duration” in “Giusto processo ?” Cedam 2006, Italy, which details Australian and US research.
[13] In this case the Court of Appeal of Douai and Aix en Provence
[14] The Code of consolidated civil procedure came into being in 1999. It has been elaborated following a report which was undertaken on behalf of Lord Woolf to make a complete analysis of the difficulties encountered in civil justice.
[15] This opinion was expressed by Mario Dogliani in his commentary “the category of reasonable delay during the training of lawyers and in the programmes of reform of justice”, Democrazia e Diritto 2/2005
[16] The Committee of Ministers adopted, on 30 November 2005, an Interim Resolution (ResDH(2005)114) concerning the excessive length of the Italian proceedings, stressing that "the gravity and complexity of the problem of excessive length of judicial proceedings requires an interdisciplinary approach and commitment at the highest level, involving the key actors".