Strasbourg, 8 July 2005 CEPEJ (2005) 6
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFEICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
5th Plenary Meeting
Strasbourg, 15 - 17 June 2005
MEETING rEPORT
|
DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE CEPEJ The CEPEJ :
§ took note with satisfaction of the ongoing dialogue between the CEPEJ and the institutions of the European Union, in particular the European Commission and the European Parliament, as regards the evaluation of European judicial systems, and welcomed the regular contacts with the European legal community, § approved the Activity Report 2004 of the CEPEJ (CEPEJ (2005) 1) and decided to submit it to the Committee of Ministers for approval, § warmly thanked Ambassador WEGENER, Permanent Representative of Germany, and Ambassador Per SJÖGREN, Permanent Representative of Sweden, for having accepted to take part in an exchange of views, in the light of the Action Plan adopted by the 3rd Summit of the Heads of State and government, on the role and the activities of the CEPEJ within the core mandate of the Council of Europe, took note with satisfaction of the strong support given in this context to the activity of the CEPEJ and in particular the invitation: - to progressively implement the whole of its existing Statute, - to implement regular evaluation exercises of European judicial systems, on the basis of appropriate means to conduct the collection and processing of data and ensure the credibility of these data, - to undertake the appropriate exploitation of the results achieved though the evaluation exercise and to formulate if possible concrete guidelines in order to improve the efficiency of judicial systems in Europe, - to develop assistance for those member States requiring it in order to implement these guidelines as well as the Council of Europe's relevant instruments. § entrusted its Bureau to develop a mid-term strategy and working programme for adoption at its 6th plenary meeting, in the light of the Action Plan adopted by the Summit and the exchange of views with the Ambassadors. § warmly thanked the authorities of the Netherlands for the excellent organisation of the Conference on evaluating judicial systems (The Hague, 2 – 3 May 2005), which enabled to present and discuss the CEPEJ Report "European judicial systems 2002", very well received by the European legal community,
§ took note with high interest of the oral presentations of the CEPEJ members on the impact of the Report in their national systems which showed that this Report has been i) widely disseminated among the relevant national institutions (some member States have translated the Report), ii) studied by policy makers and judicial authorities in many member States and iii) used as a basis for reforms in several member States; the CEPEJ invited its members to further report, where appropriate, on any developments within this framework, § adopted the draft revised Scheme for evaluating judicial systems (CEPEJ(2005) 2 Rev), subject to the redrafting of a question on the cases concerning the violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and entrusted insofar its Bureau to draft and include this question into the Scheme, decided to submit the draft revised Scheme to the Committee of Ministers for approval, asked the Secretariat to finalise the Explanatory note, on the basis of comments of member States, to be sent to the Secretariat before 15 July 2005, entrusted its Bureau to organise the next evaluation exercise on the basis of the Scheme, subject to its approval by the Committee of Ministers, § welcomed the setting up of a Network of Pilot-courts to support the work of the CEPEJ based on the practical experience of the functioning of courts, agreed to strengthen the work of the Task Force on timeframes of judicial proceedings (CEPEJ-TF-DEL) so that it can propose as soon as possible practical measures for implementing Lines of Action of priority of the Framework Programme, took note of the activities of the Committee of Experts for the improvement of procedures of the protection of human rights (DH-PR) as regards timeframes of judicial proceedings and entrusted the CEPEJ-TF-DEL to ensure the complementarity of its activities aiming at preventing delays with those of the DH-PR aiming at remedying delays, § took note of the decision by the European Committee of Legal Cooperation (CDCJ) Committee of Ministers to request the CEPEJ to examine the Opinions of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) with the view to prepare an action plan to be considered by the CDCJ with regards to the possible future activity in the field of judicial standards,
entrusted its Chair, supported by some members of the CEPEJ, to prepare an action plan to be examined at the 6th plenary meeting of the CEPEJ, after consultation with the CCJE, § took note with high interest of a report on the development of IT systems within Austrian and Italian judicial systems, § urged all CEPEJ members to initiate and propose candidatures for the Prize "The crystal Scales of Justice" and agreed to postpone the deadline for the submission of candidatures until 31 August 2005, invited the member States to participate actively in the European Day of Civil Justice. § took note of the activity on the "execution of court decisions against the state or its bodies" in the Russian Federation which should result in a Report to be submitted to the CEPEJ at its 6th plenary meeting, as well as on the follow up Conference on "practical ways on combating delays in the justice system, examining workload of judges and case backlogs in Slovenia and Croatia" to take place in Ljubljana on 28 – 29 September 2005,
§ highlighted the specific role of the CEPEJ in assisting member States, at their request, for the reforms of the judicial systems, § discussed the possibility of improving the exchange of information on the various cooperation activities in the field of justice carried on by other bodies and entrusted its Bureau to continue working on this issue, § welcomed the improvements of its Internet site and expressed the wish that these efforts would continue so that the site would become a real source of up-to-date information for the use of member states and the legal community, suggested that the CEPEJ Web site includes information from member states on main reforms in their judicial systems, § agreed to propose to the Committee of Ministers to amend the Resolution Res(2002)12 establishing the CEPEJ, in order to include in its Appendix 2 the Recommendations Rec (2003)15 on archiving of electronic documents in the legal sector and Rec(2005)12 containing an application form for legal aid abroad for use under the European Agreement on the transmission of applications for legal aid (CETS No. 092) and its Additional Protocol (CETS No. 179). *** ITEMS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS The CEPEJ invited the Committee of Ministers: a. to approve its Activity Report 2004 (CEPEJ (2005) 1), b. to approve the draft Revised Scheme for the evaluation of judicial systems (CEPEJ (2005) 2 Rev) and to take note of the Explanatory Note thereto (CEPEJ (2005) 3 Rev), c. to adopt an amendment to Resolution Res(2002)12 establishing the CEPEJ, in order to include in its Appendix 2 the Recommendations Rec (2003)15 on archiving of electronic documents in the legal sector and Rec(2005)12 containing an application form for legal aid abroad for use under the European Agreement on the transmission of applications for legal aid (CETS No. 092) and its Additional Protocol (CETS No. 179), d. to take note of this report as a whole. |
1. The European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) held its 5th plenary meeting at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg from 15 to 17 June 2005. The meeting was chaired by Mr Eberhard DESCH (Germany), Chair of the CEPEJ.
2. The agenda appears in Appendix I and the list of participants in Appendix II.
1. Statement by Mr Guy DE VEL, Director General of Legal Affairs
3. The Director General of Legal Affairs highlighted the progress made by the CEPEJ since its first meeting in February 2003 and congratulated the Committee on its report “European judicial systems 2002” which had met with a warm response from European policy-makers, legal professionals and the media.
4. Following the decisions taken at the Warsaw Summit of Heads of State and Government (see also paragraph 8 below), Mr DE VEL called on CEPEJ members to take an ever more active part in the Commission’s future work, inviting them to duly prepare the decisions to be taken at plenary meetings and to ensure that these decisions were forwarded and implemented in the member states.
5. In order, furthermore, that the CEPEJ should have a genuine say in public policy in the European judicial field, the Director General of Legal Affairs emphasised the importance of the following tasks:
(i) develop the CEPEJ’s evaluation and assistance functions by continuing on a regular basis the exercise designed to improve the knowledge of European judicial systems, but also by drawing conclusions from the facts and figures obtained in order propose guidelines and practical tools for promoting judicial reforms;
(ii) swiftly present the Committee of Ministers with proposals for practical measures for implementing the Lines of Action set out in the Framework Programme on timeframes;
(iii) provide ever greater support for judicial reforms, through the bilateral assistance activities;
(iv) carry on promoting the exchange of good practice between judicial authorities and facilitate the process of making the judicial world more accessible to ordinary citizens;
(v) continue working with the European Commission, notably through the European Day of Civil Justice and the “Crystal Scales of Justice” prize.
2. Information from the Chair of the CEPEJ and the Secretariat
6. The CEPEJ was informed that at the 3rd Summit of Heads of State and Government (Warsaw, 16-17 May 2005), the highest political authorities from the member states had confirmed in the Action Plan the leading role to be played by the CEPEJ in strengthening the rule of law by “[deciding] to develop the evaluation and assistance functions of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice".
They had also invited the Council of Europe to “strengthen co-operation with the European Union in areas of common interest, in particular in the legal (…) fields, including through joint programmes and cooperation with specialised Council of Europe bodies, such as (…) the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice”.
7. The Chair of the CEPEJ said he had attended the 26th Conference of European Ministers of Justice (Helsinki, 7-8 April 2005), on “social aspects of justice”, at which five resolutions had been adopted on debt problems, restorative justice, combating terrorism, judicial co-operation and the conditions of people detained in prison.
8. The Chair of the CEPEJ and the Director General of Legal Affairs had also been invited by the Chairperson of the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, Mr Jean-Louis BOURLANGES (France), to attend a public hearing on “Promoting a better quality for justice in Europe” (Brussels, 18 January 2005). During this hearing, the report “European judicial systems 2002” had been presented.
The work of the CEPEJ work had been welcomed by the parliamentarians and the Vice-President of the European Commission, Mr Franco FRATTINI, who said it should be seen as a reference for the future activities of the European Union, calling for the development of synergies with the CEPEJ[1]. The CEPEJ’s report had been placed at the disposal of the parliamentarians and the European Commission.
The CEPEJ noted with approval the ongoing dialogue with the European Union institutions on the evaluation of European judicial systems and welcomed the regular contacts with the European legal community.
9. The CEPEJ had also been represented by its Chair at the Forum on information technologies and justice held in Madrid on 12 and 13 June 2005. The Chair emphasised the importance of new information technologies for improving the efficiency of justice.
10. The CEPEJ was further informed that several of its members and members of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL had had an opportunity to present the report “European judicial systems 2002” at a scientific forum of the Law Society Conference, held in June 2005 in Las Vegas (USA).
11. Several members of the CEPEJ said they had had an opportunity to talk to World Bank officials about the system for evaluating judicial systems used in its “Doing Business” programme; they felt that some complementarity in terms of expertise could be envisaged.
3. CEPEJ Activity Report 2004
12. The Rapporteur, Mr Yuri BERESTNEV (Russian Federation), presented the draft CEPEJ Activity Report 2004 (Document CEPEJ (2005) 1) prepared by the Bureau. The document showed that after two years of operation, the CEPEJ had succeeded in acquiring tools for studying the functioning of judicial systems and for steering public policy in the judicial field towards greater efficiency, as well as providing specific expertise for the debate on the functioning of judicial systems.
13. The CEPEJ approved the draft Activity Report 2004 and, in keeping with Article 7.6 of its Statute, decided to forward it to the Committee of Ministers for approval. The Chair of the CEPEJ would present the report to the Ministers’ Deputies on 7 September 2005.
4. Follow-up to the 3rd Summit of Heads of State and Government (Warsaw, 16 – 17 May 2005)
14. The Chair of the CEPEJ thanked Ambassador Roland WEGENER, Permanent Representative of Germany, and Ambassador Per SJÖGREN, Permanent Representative of Sweden, for agreeing to attend an exchange of views with CEPEJ members on the implications of the Action Plan adopted at the 3rd Summit of Heads of State and Government for the activities and working methods of the CEPEJ.
15. Several CEPEJ members underlined the need for dialogue between the CEPEJ and the political bodies of the Council of Europe which might enable the technical tools provided by the CEPEJ to be actually taken into account by European and national public policy-makers.
16. The ambassadors present highlighted the main provisions of the Warsaw Declaration and the Action Plan adopted at the Summit (see paragraph 6 above).
17. It was pointed out that the CEPEJ was called upon to contribute to the smooth functioning of the Council of Europe’s human rights machinery, notably by offering member states guidelines for improving the operation of judicial systems in the member states. The ambassadors noted that these tasks were in keeping with the Council of Europe’s core activities.
18. The CEPEJ noted in particular the invitation extended by the ambassadors present:
(i) to gradually implement its Statute in its entirety;
(ii) to carry out regular evaluations of European judicial systems, using the appropriate means for collecting and processing data and ensuring their credibility;
(iii) to make appropriate use of the results obtained through the evaluation exercise and, if necessary, to prepare practical guidelines for improving the efficiency of judicial systems in Europe;
(iv) to develop assistance for any member states which so requested with a view to implementing these guidelines and the relevant Council of Europe instruments.
19. The CEPEJ welcomed the support shown by the Heads of State and Government and the Committee of Ministers, and confirmed its determination to continue working towards fulfilling the missions that had been assigned to it.
20. The Chair invited members to consider the direction that the CEPEJ should take in its future activities:
(i) several members of the CEPEJ emphasised the need to develop the results analysis phase of the evaluation exercise, saying it was up to the CEPEJ to give meaning to the factual report presented;
(ii) new information technologies, the enforcement of court decisions and alternative dispute resolution (including mediation) were suggested as specific areas which the CEPEJ could focus on in the medium term.
21. In order to be able to pursue these priorities as effectively as possible, the CEPEJ instructed its Bureau to devise a medium-term strategy and work programme, for adoption at its 6th plenary meeting, in the light of the Action Plan adopted at the Summit and the exchange of views with ambassadors.
22. In order to update its Statute in the light of the relevant instruments adopted by the Council of Europe in recent months, the CEPEJ agreed to propose that the Committee of Ministers amend Resolution Res(2002)12 in order to include in Appendix 2 thereto Recommendations Rec(2003)15 on archiving of electronic documents in the legal sector and Rec(2005)12 containing an application form for legal aid abroad for use under the European Agreement on the transmission of applications for legal aid (CETS No. 092) and its Additional Protocol (CETS No. 179).
5. Evaluation of European judicial systems
a. Impact of the Report “European judicial systems 2002”
23. The Rapporteur, Mr Joao ARSENIO DE OLIVEIRA (Portugal), described how the report had been received and disseminated in his country and the action that would be taken on it, notably by the Ministry of Justice. He invited members of the CEPEJ to promote the commission’s work among public policy-makers and the legal community in their respective countries.
24. Each member and observer of the CEPEJ described in turn the impact that the report had had in their country, leading to the following conclusions:
(i) the report had been widely circulated among the competent national institutions, on paper, via the internet or through oral presentations at conferences for example;
(ii) the media in many countries had provided coverage of the report; the exercise had thus helped to focus attention on the CEPEJ and its work;
(iii)many states which had had difficulty disseminating the report owing to the working languages used had arranged, or were going to arrange, for it to be translated and/or had prepared summaries in their own language;
(iv)the report had been, or was going to be, studied by public policy-makers and judicial authorities in several member states; some states said they intended to draw on the overview provided by the report to identify gaps in their own system or to find inspiration for reform; several states had set up ad hoc working groups to study and utilise the report;
(v) the Presidents of Supreme Courts in several states had expressed keen interest in the report.
25. It emerged from the round-table discussion that in future evaluation exercises, consideration must be given to the following points:
(i) the report was merely the result of a pilot exercise and required further work; in particular, the reliability of the data and their comparability needed improving. Several states, for example, had highlighted the need to ensure the relevance of the data supplied for future evaluations; to this end, they would use the Scheme to rethink their national statistical information system (introducing additional indicators in line with the Scheme, for example);
(ii) the fact of having a long-term series of evaluation reports would make it easier to spot trends and gauge improvements in national systems;
(iii) validation of the results presented was a key element in the evaluation exercise; measures should be developed to ensure the credibility of the data; likewise, more work was needed on clarity of presentation, so that the results could be understood by the general public and so as to avoid any biased presentation by the media, based on comparisons that may not always be appropriate.
26. The Chair of the CEPEJ thanked members for their efforts to ensure that the report reached a wide audience and invited them to report on any future developments in their respective countries following the publication of the report. Members were invited to send the Secretariat any press articles or other information concerning media coverage of the report.
b. Conference on evaluating judicial systems (The Hague, 2 – 3 May 2005)
27. The Rapporteur, Mr Gabor NAGY (Hungary), outlined the work done at the conference on evaluating judicial systems, held in The Hague on 2 and 3 May 2005. During this conference, the report “European judicial systems 2002” had been officially presented.
28. The Chair of the CEPEJ warmly thanked the Dutch authorities for the able manner in which the conference had been organised and for the hospitality shown to all the participants.
c. Draft revised Scheme for evaluating judicial systems and the explanatory note
29. Mr Pim ALBERS (Netherlands), Chair of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL, presented the draft revised Scheme for evaluating judicial systems, which had been prepared by the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL (Document CEPEJ (2005) 2) in the light of the proposals for amendments submitted by CEPEJ members, observers, members of the CEPEJ-GT-2004 and the national correspondents at various meetings in 2004. He said that an explanatory note (Document CEPEJ (2005) 3) had also been prepared by the Secretariat to help national correspondents answer the questions set out in the Scheme.
30. The Rapporteur, Ms Ivana BORZOVA (Czech Republic), said the main purpose of revising the pilot Scheme was to come up with a questionnaire that could be systematically used in future evaluation exercises. She noted that the revised Scheme contained a number of new questions (mainly about the user and certain specific judicial procedures), that the section on fair trial had been expanded and that many questions now appeared in table form.
31. The revised Scheme contained the following improvements in relation to the Pilot Scheme used in 2004:
(i) the budgetary data had been grouped together and a question about the bodies responsible for budgets inserted;
(ii) some questions had been added about the rights of victims and users of the justice system;
(iii) the definition of “court” had been clarified;
(iv) further details had been provided about the different types of “judges” and “administrative staff”;
(v) some questions about the instruments for monitoring courts’ activities and evaluating their performance had been inserted;
(vi) Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights being the main reference for gauging the efficiency and fairness of justice, some questions on fair trial had been inserted;
(vii) Civil/administrative cases and criminal cases were now dealt with in two separate tables;
(viii) the career of judges and prosecutors was dealt with in a single chapter;
(ix) the competence and responsibilities of the prosecution service were examined in greater depth;
(x) the sections on lawyers, alternative dispute resolution and enforcement of court decisions had been completely revised;
(xi) each section of the Scheme on participants in the justice system contained a question on disciplinary proceedings and sanctions;
(xii) a section on notaries had been added;
(xiii) at the end of each chapter, a special section had been created to enable the respondent to enter any comments that might be of use in interpreting the data and describe the main features or peculiarities of the system or even give a brief qualitative assessment.
32. The CEPEJ went on to discuss the draft Scheme and the explanatory note, question by question. Some amendments were made in the light of these discussions.
33. It was pointed out that the explanatory note had been drawn up under the supervision of the Secretariat. It will be finalised in the light of states’ comments, to be sent to the Secretariat by 15 July 2005.
34. The CEPEJ adopted the draft revised Scheme for evaluating judicial systems (CEPEJ (2005) 2 Rev), subject to the rewording of question 61 concerning violations of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and accordingly instructed its Bureau to draft and include this question in the Scheme.
35. The CEPEJ decided to submit the draft revised Scheme and the explanatory note to the Committee of Ministers for information.
d. Timetable for future work on the evaluation exercise
36. The CEPEJ instructed its Bureau to organise the next evaluation exercise based on the revised Scheme, bearing in mind the following:
(i) the national correspondents must study the Evaluation Report prior to its adoption by the plenary meeting of the CEPEJ in order to verify the relevance of the data provided and their use; a meeting of the national correspondents could usefully be organised for this purpose, budget permitting;
(ii) special attention should be given to the presentation of the Evaluation Report, by targeting potential readers (general public, journalists, policy-makers, etc). It was particularly important when presenting the report to strike a balance between quantitative and qualitative data. This attention to presentation should help avoid any inappropriate rankings between states. The commission might wish to consider enlisting the help of communication professionals.
37. Subject to approval of the revised Scheme by the Committee of Ministers, the next evaluation exercise could be carried out as follows:
(i) scheme to be sent out to member states in September 2005, with a view to obtaining replies by 15 January 2006;
(ii) processing of the data collected to begin in February 2006, under procedures to be agreed by the Bureau;
(iii) adoption of a new evaluation report by the CEPEJ in 2006.
7. Implementation of the Framework Programme “A new objective for European judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe”
38. The Chair of the Task Force on timeframes of proceedings (CEPEJ-TF-DEL), Mr Alan UZELAC (Croatia), reported on the ongoing efforts to implement the Framework Programme.
39. It was pointed out that the aim of the CEPEJ was to present member states as soon as possible with a set of practical measures for applying the Lines of Action set out in the Framework Programme.
40.This called inter alia for better awareness of the situation with regard to timeframes of proceedings, by studying disputes before the European Court of Human Rights and the situation with regard to each of type of case in the member states. The Task Force would focus some of its work on these studies.
41. It would also draw on the practical experience and proposals of the network of pilot courts, the creation of which was welcomed by the CEPEJ. The pilot courts had been asked to submit their answers to the questionnaire on timeframes within their court system and their comments on the Framework Programme to the Secretariat by the end of June.
42. Those states which had not yet appointed pilot courts were invited to send the Secretariat any information on courts which could be included in the network.
43. Mr Jon JOHNSEN (Norway), member of the CEPEJ-TF-DEL, introduced the project: "Time management in Nordic courts" which could support the on-going work of the Task Force. The project would compile and synthesize existing studies and reports on judicial systems in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden including descriptions and analyses of time use and time management systems in operation, proposals, ideas and reform policies aimed at improving the management and counteract delays and studies that focus on reducing queuing time or waiting time. The research could be conducted by the National Research Institute of Legal Policy in Finland.
The CEPEJ supported this proposal, to be followed up by the CEPEJ-TF-DEL.
44.Mr Johan SANGBORN (Sweden) outlined the work being carried out by the Committee of Experts for the Improvement of Procedures for the Protection of Human Rights (DH-PR) on the timeframes of court proceedings. This work was mainly concerned with the remedies and mechanisms available to users faced with excessively lengthy proceedings.
The CEPEJ noted that its work on preventing excessive length of proceedings dovetailed with the DH-PR’s efforts to remedy existing delays. It emphasised the need to ensure close co-ordination between these activities, which were directed at solving the same problem in terms of efficiency of justice and respect for Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Task Force and the Secretariat were therefore asked to create the necessary bridges between the various Council of Europe committees responsible for human rights.
8. Follow-up to the work of the European Committee on Legal Co- operation (CDCJ)
45. The Representative of the European Committee on Legal Co-operation, Mr Inge Lorange BACKER, informed the Commission of the decision of the CDCJ to ask the CEPEJ to examine the opinions of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE), in order to prepare an Action Plan, to be examined by the CDCJ, as part of its possible future activities in the field of judicial standards.
46.Following an exchange of views with the Chair of the CCJE, Mr Alain LACABARATS, the CEPEJ instructed its Chair, with the backing of MM André POTOCKI (France) and Matthias HEGER (Germany), to prepare an Action Plan for consideration at the 6th plenary meeting of the CEPEJ. It was agreed that the CCJE would be consulted about the draft Action Plan.
9. Study session: the development of IT systems within judicial systems
47. MM Thomas GOTTWALD (Austria) and Mario REMUS (Italy) outlined recent IT developments in their judicial systems. Their statements appear in Appendix III to this report.
48.Members were reminded that during the Austrian Presidency of the European Union, a conference on new IT solutions for courts, the administration of justice and the legal information system was to be held from 31 May to 2 June 2006, and would be attended by the CEPEJ. Members of the CEPEJ were invited to take part, including as speakers. Anyone interested was asked to let the CEPEJ Secretariat know as soon as possible.
10. European Day of Civil Justice (EDCJ) and the “Crystal scales of justice” prize
49.The Rapporteur, Mr John STACEY (United Kingdom), told the CEPEJ that, within the framework of the UK Presidency of the European Union, a conference on civil justice would be held in Edinburgh from 24 to 26 October 2005. This conference had been chosen as the key event of the European Day of Civil Justice. CEPEJ members were invited to attend.
50. At the Edinburgh conference (25 October), will be awarded the European Prize for innovative practice contributing to the efficiency of civil justice: the “Crystal Scales of Justice”.
51. CEPEJ members were urged to continue lobbying political and judicial bodies in their respective countries in an effort to generate more initiatives, in all the member states, to mark this European Day of Civil Justice. They were also urged to seek out and nominate candidates for the first-ever “Crystal Scales of Justice” prize. It was agreed to extend the closing date for applications to 31 August 2005.
52. More generally, CEPEJ members were invited to provide the Secretariat with any information that might be of help in drawing up a programme of events.
11. CEPEJ’s assistance activities at the request of member states
53. The CEPEJ member in respect of the Russian Federation informed the Commission of the co-operation sought by his country, and approved by the CEPEJ Bureau, aimed at making recommendations concerning the enforcement of court decisions rendered against the State and/or its agencies. He said that this issue was at the root of numerous cases to the European Court of Human Rights.
54. The Secretariat informed the Commission that, with the approval of the Bureau, the team of experts from the CEPEJ would be led by Mr Michael VRONTAKIS, the CEPEJ member in respect of Greece, and would consist of Ms Mireille HEERS (Vice-President of the Administrative Court of Appeal of Versailles, France), Mr Hans-Peter SCHMIESZEK (Head of the Bureau of Administrative Procedural Law at the Federal Ministry of Justice, Germany) and Mr Theo SIMONS (Senior Vice-President of Utrecht Court of Appeal, the Netherlands).
55. An exploratory mission to Moscow would take place from 27 to 29 June 2005. The experts would then prepare a preliminary report which would be discussed with the Russian delegation on 20 and 21 October 2005. The experts’ finalised report would be submitted at the 6th plenary meeting of the CEPEJ for adoption. Subject to its adoption, it would be officially presented to the competent authorities of the Russian Federation the following December.
56. The CEPEJ member in respect of Slovenia announced that the conference on “practical ways of combating delays in the justice system, excessive workloads of judges and case backlogs in Slovenia and Croatia" designed to assess follow-up to the CEPEJ’s assistance activity conducted in 2004, would be held in Ljubljana on 28 and 29 September 2005.
57. Several members of the CEPEJ stressed the need to ensure proper co-ordination between the assistance activities conducted by the CEPEJ and other institutions’ assistance programmes (such as the PHARE programmes run by the European Commission). It was pointed out that co-ordinating assistance activities was mainly the task of the beneficiary states themselves, who were responsible for ensuring that there was no unnecessary duplication.
58. The Secretariat said that regular dialogue was being established between the Council of Europe and the other competent institutions, chief among them the European Union institutions. It was pointed out here that a large number of activities for improving the rule of law were being developed in South-East Europe and eastern Europe under joint programmes between the Council of Europe and the European Commission.
59. In the course of this discussion, attention was drawn to the role played by the Council of Europe in general, in assisting member states with the national reforms needed to honour their commitments to the Council and meet the European standards laid down in its instruments, and to the role of the CEPEJ in particular, in the field of judicial reform.
60.The CEPEJ instructed its Bureau to continue discussing the exchange of information on co-operation activities conducted in the judicial field by the various European and international partners.
12. Exchange of views with the European Network of Judicial Councils
61. The representatives of the European Network of Judicial Councils having apologised for their absence, the discussion was postponed until a later plenary meeting.
62. The Secretariat informed the Commission, however, that the Council of Europe had been invited to the Network’s annual meeting (Barcelona, 2 – 3 June 2005), at which the CEPEJ report “European judicial systems” had been presented and discussed. The report had been very well received by representatives of the European Judicial Councils. The meeting had also provided an opportunity to publicise the European Day of Civil Justice and the “Crystal Scales of Justice” prize.
13. Communication tools of the CEPEJ
63. After taking note of the report presented by Mr Margus SARAPUU (Estonia), the CEPEJ, while noting the substantial improvements made to its web site, said it was important to continuing developing its communication tools and improving the layout of its site.
64.It was recalled that the aim was to make the CEPEJ an authoritative source of information on judicial systems for use by public policy-makers and the European legal community. It was accordingly suggested that the CEPEJ web site include information from member states on recent or ongoing changes to the judicial system.
65. The CEPEJ agreed to ask for an exchange of views with the Council of Europe departments responsible for communication, in order to examine the specific needs of the Commission in the light of the technical constraints and the communication strategy of the Council as a whole.
14. Academic research (theses) supported by the CEPEJ
66.The Rapporteur having apologised for his absence, this item was postponed until the next plenary meeting of the CEPEJ.
15. Timetable for future work
67. The Secretariat reminded members that the 6th plenary meeting of the CEPEJ would be held in Strasbourg from 7 to 9 December 2005. Should the Bureau decide to hold a study session that would be incorporated in the meeting proper.
16. Any other business
68.In order to facilitate the CEPEJ’s work in the long term and enable the Secretariat to draw on member states’ active involvement to develop its work throughout the year, it was agreed to ask member states:
(i) to give the Secretariat the name and position of the CEPEJ member, if different from the person who attended the last plenary meeting of the CEPEJ, or if the country in question was not represented at that meeting;
(ii) if the CEPEJ member was unable to answer all the queries arising from the CEPEJ’s activities, to further provide the Secretariat with the name and position of a contact person in the competent institution (e.g. Ministry of Justice) on whom the Secretariat could call (e.g. for appointing experts, answering questionnaires or forwarding information); the CEPEJ member would be kept informed of any correspondence between the Secretariat and this contact person.
APPENDIX I
AGENDA
1. Opening of the meeting by Mr Guy DE VEL, Director General of Legal Affairs
2. Adoption of the agenda
3. Information by the President of the CEPEJ and the Secretariat
4. Discussion of the draft CEPEJ Activity Report 2004, in view of its adoption
Rapporteur: Mr. Yuri BERESTNEV (the Russian Federation)
5. Follow up to the 3rd Summit of the Heads of State and government (Warsaw, 16 – 17 May 2005)
Rapporteurs: Mr. Eberhard DESCH (Germany)
Exchange of views with the representatives of the Committee of Ministers, Ambassador Roland WEGENER, Permanent Representative of Germany to the Council of Europe and Ambassador Per SJÖGREN, Permanent Representative of Sweden to the Council of Europe
Possible adaptation of the activities and working methods of the CEPEJ
6. Evaluation of the European judicial systems
Impact of the Report “European judicial systems 2002” in the member States
Rapporteur : M. Joao ARSENIO DE OLIVEIRA (Portugal)
Tour de table
Conference on evaluating judicial systems (The Hague, 2 – 3 May 2005)
Rapporteur : Gabor NAGY (Hungary)
Discussion of the draft revised Scheme for evaluating judicial systems, prepared by the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL, in view of its adoption
Introduction: Pim ALBERS (Netherlands), Chairman of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL
Rapporteur: Ivana BORZOVA (Czech Republic)
Evaluation process of the judicial data of 2004
- Methodology
- Calendar
7. Implementation of the Framework-Programme: “ A new objective for European judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe “
Rapporteur: Alan UZELAC (Croatia), Chairman of the Task Force on timeframes of proceedings (CEPEJ-TF-DEL)
Presentation of the ongoing works of the DH-PR: Johan SANGBORN (Sweden)
8. Follow up to works of the European Committee of Legal Cooperation (CDCJ)
Rapporteur: Mr. Inge Lorange BACKER, Representative of the CDCJ
9. Study session: IT systems within judicial systems
Presentation by Mr. Thomas GOTTWALD (Austria) and Mr. Mario REMUS (Italy)
10.European Day of Civil Justice (JEJC) and European Prize “The crystal scales of justice”
Rapporteurs: Ms. Deirdre BOYLAN and Mr. John STACEY (United Kingdom)
11. Bilateral activities of the CEPEJ in 2005
12. Exchange of views with the European Network of Judicial Councils
13. Communication tools of the CEPEJ (Newsletter / Internet Website)
Rapporteur : Mr. Margus SARAPUU (Estonia)
14.Academic researches (Thesis) to be supported by the CEPEJ
Rapporteur : Mr. Xenofon KRISAFI (Albania)
15. Agenda of the future works
16. Any other business
APPENDIX II
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
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 Relations, Ministry of Justice, YEREVAN
AUSTRIA/AUTRICHE
Thomas GOTTWALD, Judge, Federal Ministry of Justice, VIENNA
Georg STAWA, Judge, Federal Ministry of Justice, VIENNA
AZERBAIJAN/AZERBAIDJAN (Apologised/Excusée)
BELGIUM/BELGIQUE (Apologised/Excusée)
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA/BOSNIE-HERZEGOVINE (Apologised/Excusée)
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
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 KIESILĀINEN, Director General, Ministry of Justice, HELSINKI
FRANCE
André POTOCKI, Président de Chambre à la Cour d’Appel de Paris, Cour d’appel de Paris, PARIS, Vice Chair of the CEPEJ/Vice-Président de la CEPEJ
GEORGIA/GEORGIE
Konstantin KORKELIA, First deputy Minister, Ministry of Justice, 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 de bureau, Ministère de la Justice du Nordrhein-Westfalen, DÜSSELDORF
GREECE/GRECE
Michael VRONTAKIS, Vice-Président du Conseil d’Etat, ATHENES
HUNGARY/HONGRIE
Gabor NAGY, Conseiller Référendaire, Directeur du Bureau des Droits de l’Homme à la Cour Suprême de Hongrie, BUDAPEST
ICELAND/ISLANDE (Apologised/Excusée)
IRELAND/IRLANDE
Denis BYRNE,Assistant Principal Officer, Courts Policy Division, Department of Justice Equality and Law Reform, DUBLIN
Ciaran KELLY, Principal Registrar High Court, Courts Service, Four Courts, DUBLIN
Iarflaith O'NEILL, Judge, the High Court, Four Courts, DUBLIN
ITALY/ITALIE
Mario REMUS, Magistrat de Cassation, Ministère de la Justice, ROME
LATVIA/LETTONIE
Aija BRANTA, Judge of the Constitutional Court, RIGA
LIECHTENSTEIN (Apologised/Excusé)
LITHUANIA/LITUANIE
Laima GARNELIENE, Head of Criminal Cases Division of the Lithuanian Court Appeal, VILNIUS
LUXEMBOURG
Yves HUBERTY, Attaché de Gouvernement, Ministère de la justice, LUXEMBOURG-KIRCHBERG
MALTA/MALTE (Apologised/Excusé)
MOLDOVA
Diana SCOBIOALÀ, Chef de la Direction Agent du Gouvernement, Ministère de la Justice, CHISINAU
MONACO (Apologised/Excusée)
NETHERLANDS/PAYS‑BAS
Pim ALBERS, Senior Policy Advisor, Strategy Department for the Administration of Justice, Ministry of Justice, EH THE HAGUE, (Chair of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL / Président du CEPEJ-GT-EVAL)
NORWAY/NORVEGE
Merethe Baustad RANUM, Senior legal adviser, Judicial Department, National Court Administration, Domstoladministrasjonen, TRONDHEIM
POLAND/POLOGNE (Apologised/Excusée)
PORTUGAL
João ARSENIO DE OLIVEIRA, Legal Consultant, Office of Legal policies and planning, Ministry of Justice, LISBON
ROMANIA/ROUMANIE
Vasilica-Cristi DANILET, Juge, Conseiller du Ministre de la justice, Ministère de la Justice, BUCAREST
THE RUSSISAN FEDERATION/FEDERATION DE RUSSIE
Yury BERESTNEV, Director of Department, State Legal Directorate of the President of the Russian Federation (GGPU), MOSCOW
SAN‑MARINO/SAINT MARIN (Apologised/Excusé)
SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO/SERBIE-MONTENEGRO (Apologised/Excusée)
SLOVAK REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE SLOVAQUE
Igor BELKO, Judge, Supreme Court, BRATISLAVA
SLOVENIA/SLOVENIE
Marko ŠORLI, 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
SWEDEN/SUEDE
Johan SANGBORN, Deputy Director, Division for Procedural Law and Court Issues, Ministry of Justice, STOCKHOLM
SWITZERLAND/SUISSE (Apologised /Excusée)
"THE FORMER YOUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"/"L'EX-REPUBLIQUE YOUGOSLAVE DE MACEDOINE"
Nikola PROKOPENKO, Head of Unit of Courts and Public Prosecution Office, Ministry of Justice, SKOPJE
TURKEY/TURQUIE
Gökcen TÜRKER, Judge, Ministry of Justice, Directorate General for International Law and Foreign Relations, ANKARA
UKRAINE
Oleksiy PEREVEZENTSEV, Chief Advisor, Secretariat of the President of Ukraine, Foreign Policy Directorate, KIEV
Olesya BARTOVSHCHUK, Head of Civil and Commercial Proceedings, Division of the Office of the Government Agency before the European Court of Human Rights, Ministry of Justice, KYIV
UNITED KINGDOM/ROYAUME‑UNI
Deirdre BOYLAN, Policy Officer, European Policy Division, Department for Constitutional Affairs, LONDON
John STACEY, Head of Civil and Family Procedure Branch, Customer Services Directorate, The Court Service HQ, LONDON
***
OBSERVER STATES / ETATS OBSERVATEURS
HOLY SEE/SAINT-SIEGE
Odile GANGHOFER, Docteur en droit, STRASBOURG, FRANCE
CANADA (Apologised/Excusé)
JAPAN/JAPON
Noriaki YOSHIMURA, Counsellor, Judicial System Department, Ministry of Justice, TOKYO
Françoise Nadia RICHER, Assistante, Consulat Général du Japon, STRASBOURG, FRANCE
MEXICO/MEXIQUE (Apologised/Excusé)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/ETATS UNIS D’AMERIQUE (Apologised/Excusé)
***
OBSERVERS / OBSERVATEURS
COUNCIL OF THE BARS AND LAW SOCIETIES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION/CONSEIL DES BARREAUX DE l’UNION EUROPEENNE (CCBE)
Jana WURSTOVA, Head, International Department, Czech Bar Association, PRAGUE, CZECH REPUBLIC
EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION OF JUDGES/Association européenne des MAGISTRATS (EAJ)
Ernst MARKEL, Presiding Justice Supreme Court of Austria, Justizpalast, VIENNA, AUSTRIA
EUROPEAN UNION OF RECHTSPFLEGER AND COURT CLERKS/UNION EUROPEENNE DES GREFFIERS DE JUSTICE (EUR)
Jean-Jacques KUSTER, Représentant de l’EUR auprès du Conseil de l’Europe, Tribunal d’Instance, STRASBOURG, FRANCE
Véronique SOIN-PIAT, Tribunal d’instance, LONGWY, FRANCE
Joseph HORRION, Greffier en chef, Tribunal de 1ère instance de Liège, LIEGE, BELGIQUE
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF BAILIFFS/UNION INTERNATIONALE DES HUISSIERS DE JUSTICE ET OFFICIERS JUDICIAIRES (UIHJ)
Roger DUJARDIN, Vice-Président de l’UIHJ, ANVERS, BELGIQUE
EUROPEAN FEDERATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES/FEDERATION EUROPEENNE DES JUGES ADMINISTRATIFS
Pierre VINCENT, Président de la Fédération européenne des juges administratifs, Tribunal administratif, STRASBOURG, FRANCE
MAGISTRATS EUROPEENS POUR LES DEMOCRATIES ET LES LIBERTES (MEDEL) (Apologised/Excusé)
THE HAGUE CONFERENCE OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW/CONFERENCE DE LA HAYE DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE (Apologised/Excusé)
WORLD BANK /BANQUE MONDIALE (Apologised/Excusé)
***
EUROPEAN COMMISSION / COMMISSION EUROPEENNE (Apologised/Excusé)
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION/CONSEIL DE L’UNION EUROPEENNE (Apologised/Excusé)
***
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS/COMITE DES MINISTRES
Roland WEGENER, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent Representative of Germany to the Council of Europe
Per SJÖGREN, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent Representative of Sweden to the Council of Europe
PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE/ASSEMBLEE PARLEMENTAIRE DU CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE (Apologised/Excusée)
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS / COUR EUROPENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME
Lawrence EARLY, Deputy Grand Chamber Registrar, Registry, European Court of Human Rights/Adjoint au Greffier de la Grande Chambre, Greffe de la Cour européenne 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)
Inge Lorange BACKER, Director General of the Legislation Department, Ministry of Justice, OSLO, NORWAY
CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN JUGES/CONSEIL CONSULTATIF DE JUGES EUROPEENS (CCJE)
Alain LACABARATS, Président du CCJE, Directeur du Service de Documentation et d’Etudes de la Cour de Cassation, PARIS, FRANCE, (Président du CCJE)
STEERING COMMITTEE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS/COMITE DIRECTEUR POUR LES DOIRTS DE L’HOMME (CDDH) (Apologised/Excusée)
***
EXPERTS OF THE CEPEJ-GT- EVAL
Pim ALBERS, Senior Policy Advisor, Strategy Department for the Administration of Justice, Ministry of Justice, EH THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS, Chair of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL / Président du CEPEJ-GT-EVAL
Hazel GENN, Professor of Socio-Legal Studies, Faculty of Laws, University College London, 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, PARIS, FRANCE
Mikhail VINOGRADOV, Lawyer, State Legal Directorate of the President of the Russian Federation (GGPU), MOSCOW
Fausto DE SANTIS , Directeur Général au sein du Bureau de l’organisation judiciaire, Ministère de la Justice, ROME, ITALIE
EXPERTS OF THE CEPEJ-TF-DEL
Jon T. JOHNSEN, Professor in Law, Dean, Faculty of law, University of Oslo, OSLO, NORWAY
Mario REMUS, Magistrat de Cassation, Ministère de la Justice, ROME, ITALIE
John STACEY, Head of Civil Business Branch, Customer Services Directorate, The Court Service HQ, LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM
Alan UZELAC, Ph.D. Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb, ZAGREB, CROATIA, Chair of the CEPEJ-TF-DEL / Président du CEPEJ-TF-DEL
Michael VRONTAKIS, Vice-Président du Conseil d’Etat, ATHENES, GRECE
Jana WURSTOVA, Head, International Department, Czech Bar Association, PRAGUE, CZECH REPUBLIC
***
SECRETARIAT (Directorate General I - Legal Affairs / Direction Générale 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
José-Maria FERNANDEZ VILLALOBOS
Jean-Pierre GEILLER
Elisabeth HEURTEBISE
Marie MORGAN-WELS
INTERPRETES / INTERPRETERS
Christopher TYCZKA
Philippe QUAINE
Nicolas GUITTONNEAU
APPENDIX III
IT in justice
Joint presentation by
Mr Mario REMUS (Italy) and Mr Thomas GOTTWALD (Austria)
Presentation by Mr Mario REMUS
(in French only)
Chers membres de la CEPEJ,
Je pense que le domaine juridique et, en particulier, le terrain de la juridiction est très fertile pour l’implantation des technologies électroniques.
cela, pour trois raisons au moins
- en favorisant la diffusion des informations et, par conséquence, en augmentant la transparence du service judiciaire;
- en favorisant l’uniformisation des procédures et, en augmentant, la rationalisation de l’organisation du travail;
- les opérations matérielles vont plus vite.
J’ai apprécié que le Secrétariat, la Présidence et le Bureau autorisent cette présentation conjointe, entre l’Autriche et l’Italie, sur les systèmes électroniques judiciaires, en soulignat l’importance des moyen informatiques dans le travail de la CEPEJ.
Dans cette présentation conjointe, pour Vous offrir un angle d’observation différent, Je ne Vous donnerai pas un panorama de toutes les applications électroniques appliquées en l’Italie, cela a déjà été fait, et très bien, par notre collègue autrichien.
Je me limite a dire qu’en Italie, la dépense pour l’électronique dans le domaine de la Justice se situe en troisième position parmi les administrations publiques, après l’administration des finances et de l’Intérieur (source: Judicial electronic data interchange in Europe: applications, policies and trends. Marco Fabri and Francesco Contini. Ed.: IRSIG- CNR 2003).
Je dois aussi rappeler que l’aventure électronique dans mon Pays a commencé dans les années soixante du siècle dernier, avec le Centre de documentation électronique prés la Cour de Cassation (CED) qui a été représentée ici, plusieurs fois, par le juge Meriggiola. C’était l’antiquité de l’informatique: pensez que le Centre avait commencé son chemin avec un système électromécanique qui fonctionnait avec des fichiers en plastic perforés et avec des élaborateurs avec un refroidissement à l’eau. Le Centre a parcouru beaucoup de route et offre maintenant aux juristes (pour tous les magistrats italiens c’est gratuit) plus de 4 millions de documents de jurisprudence, de législation et de doctrine.
Mais fermons la parenthèse, je vais vous décrire ce qu’est pour nous la dernière frontière de l’électronique appliquée aux procédures judiciaires.
Nous essayons de réaliser un processus civil entièrement en ligne, dit Processo telematico, c’est une nouvelle expérience, qui a conduit à édicter des règles techniques, en particulier un décret du Ministre de la Justice en octobre 2004, en phase d’expérimentation dans 8 tribunaux de première instance.
Qu’est ce que le Processo telematico?
C’est la possibilité pour les avocats et pour les fonctionnaires de la justice de gérer la procédure judiciaire civile presque entièrement par les moyens électroniques.
La transmission et la réception des documents, la consultation des dossiers se fait à l’aide des ordinateurs et des archives électroniques.
Une des conséquences en est la réduction des contacts humains, qui sont aussi nécessaires, mais il ne faut pas penser à une procédure froide et inhumaine (surtout en Italie où l’on apprécie beaucoup le contact humain), on va plutôt rationaliser le temps de travail, réduire les opérations répétitives et, en libérant le procès de ces poids, on va valoriser les occasions où les professionnels se retrouvent, surtout à l’audience; de plus, il sera moins facile de soutenir, comme il arrive souvent en Italie, qu’il y a un défaut de contradictoire par ce qu’une partie ou un juge n’ont pas eu connaissance d’un document.
Voici l’architecture du système, représenté par le dessin ci-dessous où l’on peut observer le parcours des lignes de communication entre les usagers et la structure informatique de la justice.
Les Avocats
Les usagers, et notamment les avocats, ont accès au système informatique civil (SICI) a travers le réseau publique Internet, qui arrive dans touts les foyers.
Leur travail se fait en utilisant un ordinateur, les documents sont créés par un logiciel qui utilise un traitement de texte commun (par exemple Word de Microsoft) et qui transforme le document en format XML, en accord avec des modèles de documents, dites DTD (Document type definition), qui sont fournies par le Ministère de la Justice. Je souligne que la publication de ces Document type definition donnera l’opportunité aux usagers de créer eux-mêmes le logiciel pour la création des document de l’avocat.
Les documents pouvent avoir des annexes dans les formats suivants: .pdf, .rtf, .txt, .jpg, .gif, .tiff.; de cette façon on peut produire des images, des photo e toutes les reproduction d’objet qui peuvent être nécessaires pour la preuve.
Une fois le document saisi sur l’ordinateur, l’avocat va apposer une signature informatique en utilisant une carte mémoire personnelle, puis il va envoyer le document, en façon cryptée (algorithme 3DES), au Point d’accès en utilisant le réseau public internet avec un canal sécurisé.
Le Point d’accès
Le Point d’accès est la conjonction entre le domaine privé et le domaine public. Il peut être un sujet public, comme un barreau des avocats, ou une société privé, qui garanti des caractéristiques de sécurité et de solidité financière.
Le Point d’accès fournit le services généraux suivant:
- gère le courrier électronique des avocats enregistrés
- contrôle la qualification professionnelle des usagers, à l’aide d’un registre électronique des avocats en service;
- tient les archives en ligne des tous les documents envoyés pendant 5 ans.
Une fois que le document envoyé par l’avocat est reçu, le Point d’accès contrôle l’absence de virus, donne un accusé de réception provisoire et envoie le document à l’intérieur du réseau publique dit RUPA (Réseau Unitaire de la Administration Publique), et précisément dans un plus petit et plus particulier réseau de justice, dit RUG (Réseau unique de la Justice).
La communication entre le Point d’accès et le Réseau unique de la Justice est effectuée par un canal cryptée, avec des ordinateurs qui ont une réciprocité d’authentication avec un Protocole SSL3.
L’Administrateur central
C’est dans le Réseau unique de la Justice que l’on trouve le cœur du système informatique civil, c'est-à-dire l’Administrateur central se trouvant auprès du Ministère de la justice et qui s’occupe de toutes les transmissions du Processo telematico, c’est donc un point unique, central et de passage obligée.
L’Administrateur central s’occupe de:
- fournir une barrière de sécurité et de protection pour le système informatique civil (SICI).
- mettre sur le bon chemin tous les messages reçus;
- fournir les attestations temporelles à tous les documents transmis, fonction très importante dans le domaine judiciaire;
- contrôler la qualification professionnelle des usagers, dans les cas ou elle n’est pas faite par le Point d’accès;
- conserver une copie de tous les documents envoyés pendant 5 ans, il faut cependant noter que l’administrateur central est un gardien aveugle des documents parce que ils sont cryptés chez lui.
Si nous continuons à suivre le message envoyé par l’avocat, il passe à travers la sécurité de l’Administrateur central, prend une attestation temporelle qui est transmise à l’expéditeur, et est envoyée, désormais à l’intérieur du Réseau de la Justice, à l’Administrateur local concerné.
L’Administrateur local
Qui est ce nouveau sujet?
C’est un organisateur informatique situé près les bureaux judiciaires qui s’occupe de:
- contrôler l’intégrité des messages qui proviennent de l’extérieur du SICI;
- faire le décryptage des messages reçus;
- garder trace de toutes les communications;
- mettre à disposition les documents au greffe du tribunal.
Pour finir, notre message est arrivé à l’attention du juge, mais il m’aura fallu plus d’une dizaine de minutes pour expliquer ce cheminement qui est parcouru par le message en quelque secondes.
J’espère sincèrement que cela contribuera à la réduction des délais déraisonnables des procédures judiciaires italiennes.
Presentation by Mr Thomas GOTTWALD
(PP presentation not included
see separate document)
[1] Mr FRATTINI had already said that he would support the CEPEJ’s activities when he appeared at a hearing before the European Parliament in Strasbourg in November 2004.