Strasbourg, 22 September 2016
CEPEJ-SATURN(2016)7
EUROPEAN Commission FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
Steering Group of the SATURN Centre for Judicial Time Management
(CEPEJ-SATURN)
20th Meeting
Strasbourg, 20 and 22 September 2016
MEETING REPORT
Report prepared by the Secretariat
Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law
1. Opening of the meeting
1. The Steering Group of the SATURN Centre for the study and analysis of judicial time management of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) held its 20th meeting in Strasbourg on 20 and 22 September 2016. It was chaired by Jacques BÜHLER (Switzerland). The agenda appears in Appendix I and the list of participants in Appendix II to this report.
2. Information from the Chair, Group members and the Secretariat
2. The Secretariat informed the Group that the 2016 CEPEJ evaluation report would be made public on 6 October 2016, together with a new dynamic online database.
3. Preparation of the 11th plenary meeting of the network of pilot courts
3. The Group agreed to present in the 11th plenary meeting of the network of pilot courts the updated model on the European timeframes for judicial proceedings.
4. Towards European timeframes for judicial proceedings - implementation guide
4. The Chair reminded the work carried out since the last meeting, in particular that alternative proposals on how to better define the timeframes had been drawn up with a view to addressing the points of criticism made on previous occasions.
5. Marco FABRI (scientific expert, Italy) recalled the work carried out so far. He explained the process that had led to the preparation of the revised European timeframes of the judicial proceedings, in particular, that a preparatory study had been carried out from June 2016 based on a questionnaire aimed at the national correspondents and the pilot courts of the CEPEJ. The analysis was based on empirical data collected by the national correspondents and the pilot courts, and the Calvez/Régis report. This study had been used to set flexible and realistic standard timeframes for pending cases based on reliable data, using a “progressive steps” approach made by five frames.
6. Jacques BÜHLER introduced a second alternative approach on the European timeframes, which is based on the Marco FABRI’s initial proposal[1] and on the data collected from the national correspondents as confronted with the data collected from the pilot courts representatives. The proposed timeframes are designed taking into account: the representativeness[2] of the sample, the case-law of ECtHR[3], the examples on the timeframes definition from U.S and Australia, and the need to make the backlog more transparent. More concretely, they target the type of the procedure (civil, administrative, criminal), the nature of the cases (priority, normal, complex), the ECtHR case law standards (12, 24, 12, 18 months), and the disposition time according to the data collection from national correspondents and pilot courts.[4]
7. The Group approved the alternative model for the realistic timeframes while expressing some concerns as regards the difficulties in quantifying on empirical bases priority cases, as defined by ECtHR’ case-law standards. The Secretariat reminded in this regard that the CEPEJ tools should aim in first place at offering guidelines and diagnosing the problems regarding the age of pending cases at national level. This was not to be confused with the tools that national courts should use on their own for implementing judicial timeframes.
Finally, the Chairman invited the CEPEJ-SATURN group to co-operate with CEPEJ-GT-EVAL in order to update the information about the backlog cases. He concluded that both proposals, the one introduced by Marco FABRI and the alternative proposal were to be presented to the next meeting of the network of pilot courts, and that the final proposal retained had to be reflected in the document CEPEJ-SATURN(2016)4 on judicial timeframes, with a view to the presentation of the latter document in the 28th plenary meeting in December 2016.
5. Recent ECtHR case law to the reasonable time criterion and possible follow-up by the CEPEJ
8. The Chairman presented the table with the list of the most recent ECtHR case law concerning the length of judicial proceedings in the light of article 6 ECHR[5].
6. Updating of Recommendation Rec(86)12 concerning measures to prevent and reduce the excessive workload in the courts
9. The Secretariat informed the participants that the Steering Committee on Legal Cooperation (CDCJ) agreed to include this subject in the agenda of their next plenary meeting.
7. Continuous improvement of data collection
10. The Secretariat informed the Group on the most innovative dynamic online database. This database offers information on the situation of judicial systems in Europe by indicators such as GDP, population, the number of courts, number of judges and non-judge staff, lawyers, budget of judiciary, courts and prosecution, and the legal aid efficiency. This information as provided in forms of graphs, tables and charts will become publicly available. Nonetheless, the database poses some limitations as it can cover information only for the period from 2010-2012-2014.
8. Discussions about the content of the study on judicial timeframes in the 2nd and 3rd instance
11. The Group discussed the document CEPEJ-SATURN(2016)5[6], suggesting to maintain only those tables that indicate the clearance rate and the disposition time. The Chairman asked the Secretariat to choose an expert for updating the study in line with the evaluation report. In addition, he suggested adding a new point 6.3 regarding to the evaluation of cases brought before the ECtHR and their impact on the length of the judicial proceedings and another point 6.4 to include the ”Pinto” Law and other recommendations.
9. Revision of the definitions used in the CEPEJ tools for judicial case management (caseload, backlog, EUGMONT indicators, etc.)
12. The Group instructed the Secretariat to ensure that the definitions proposed in the document CEPEJ(2016)6 were relevant and consistent in both English and French versions. It proposed the establishment of an ad-hoc group with representatives from the CEPEJ-GTQUAL and CEPEJ-GT-VAL to revision the document.
10. CEPEJ co-operation programmes
(b) Morocco
13. The Secretariat informed the Group of the state of development of the programme, which was welcomed by the delegation from Morocco as very helpful.
(c) Tunisia
14. The co-operation between CEPEJ and Tunisia is continuing with 10 pilot courts. Initially, the project was focused on reducing the backlog in one of the courts. Having harvested positive results based on the collected and processed data, now the objective is to extend the project to the other pilot courts which are actually leading on different themes.
(d) Jordan
15. Since the latest CEPEJ mission in 2015 in Jordan, no concrete activities were implemented and new fields for intervention by the CEPEJ are being identified. Mr. AL-MASRI (Jordan) thanked the CEPEJ for its intervention and confirmed that the Jordanian authorities were still discussing the most suitable fields for the CEPEJ intervention.
(e) Albania
16. The Secretariat of the CEPEJ briefed the participants about the latest developments under the project “Horizontal Facility for Western Balkans”, which provides an opportunity to continue and strengthen the work previously carried out by the CEPEJ in Albania. Following an inception mission at the beginning of September, the priorities are being identified, taking into account the ongoing judicial reform.
(f) Kosovo *
17. CEPEJ has started a new project in Kosovo*, following the experience of implementation of a court coaching programme at the Basic Court of Pristina. The nature of the intervention at this stage is based upon CEPEJ core work (evaluation of judicial systems, CEPEJ tools on judicial time management and the quality of justice).
(g) Croatia
18. The Secretariat of CEPEJ and Ivan CRNČEC expressed appreciation for the results of the CEPEJ co-operation project in Croatia, which have been significant despite its complexity and wide scope.
(h) Azerbaijan and the Republic of Moldova
19. The Secretariat of CEPEJ presented current activities with pilot courts on judicial time management and the quality of justice as well as the future ones, including a visit of representatives of each of these countries to Strasbourg in the due course on October.
11. CEPEJ coaching programmes
a) Draft Handbook for the implementation of the tools developed by the CEPEJ
20. The Chairman introduced the Draft Handbook for the implementation of the tools developed by the CEPEJ, which proposes a methodology consisting of four phases: the selection, the analysis, the project and the reporting on the tools. The Group expressed their satisfaction for the document as a very useful support in the application of CEPEJ’ instruments and methodology.
21. The Chairman proposed to modify the document based on the received remarks from the group members and submit it at the next meeting of the CEPEJ-SATURN in 2017, for final approval.
a) Malta
22. Mr. Francesco Depasquale pointed out that a monthly report on the state of his activity was now addressed to each judge and that a satisfaction survey was also under way, but was proving difficult to be implemented. The Chairman entrusted Francesco Depasquale with the task of collecting the last remarks and integrating them into the final version of the monthly report.
(b) Greece (Thessalonica)
23. The President incorporated the last remarks on the court coaching report made by the court. The upcoming visit of the CEPEJ to Greece would provide the opportunity to further discuss the progress made by the court and concerns related to its functioning.
b) France (Avignon): establishment of a predictor of processing time
24. The expert team of the CEPEJ held meeting on 22 September 2016 with the representative of Avignon’ Court of the high instance, Mrs. Sylvie Dodivers (First Vice-President). The implementation of new measures aiming at setting timeframes and speeding up the processing of cases in which the parties reach a preliminary agreement was discussed. These measures would be tested starting from January 2017, and include the provision of basic court equipment by the French Ministry of Justice.
25. It was agreed to update the visit report on the basis of the discussions and then submit it to the court and then to the Ministry of Justice by the end of October. A meeting with the Ministry of Justice could take place before the end of the year. The court would like to put the proposed measures in place for the litigants by the beginning of the year. A trip to Avignon could be scheduled at the end of March/ beginning of April 2017 to see the effectiveness of the system. As an appendix to the report, an example of an information document to litigants would be provided.
12. Other items
a) SATURN Guidelines for Judicial Time Management
26. The Chairman instructed the Secretariat to update the document SATURN guidelines for judicial time management[7] with the new numbers of the priority guidelines.
b) Cooperation with the Department for the execution of judgments of the Court
27. The Chairman instructed the Secretariat to create cooperative communication channels between the Department for the Execution of ECtHR’ judgments and the CEPEJ in order to collect shared information that could be valuable and accessible for both of them.
c) Information concerning the work on going within the other working groups
28. The Secretariat informed the participants about the ongoing work of the other working groups, CEPEJ –GT- Eval[8] and CEPEJ –GT –Qual.[9]
d) Other points
29. The Chairman and the Group discussed on a number of topics that could be included in the agenda for the next meeting.
APPENDIX II MEMBERS Ivana BORZOVÁ, Head of Department of Civil Supervision, Ministry of Justice, PRAGUE, CZECH REPUBLIC Jacques BÜHLER, Secrétaire Général suppléant, Tribunal fédéral suisse, LAUSANNE, SUISSE (Chairman of the Group / Président du Groupe) Ivan CRNČEC, Assistant Minister of Justice, ZAGREB, CROATIA - Apologised / Excusé Francesco DEPASQUALE, Magistrate, Legal Advisor to the Director General, Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs, VALLETTA, MALTA Gerasimos FOURLANOS, Vice-President of the Supreme Civil and Penal Court, ATHENS, GREECE Giacomo OBERTO, Magistrat, Tribunal de Grande Instance, TURIN, ITALIE Noel RUBOTHAM, Head of Reform and Development, Courts Service, DUBLIN , IRELAND *** SCIENTIFIC EXPERTS Marco FABRI, Director, Research Institute on Judicial Systems, National Research Council (IRSIG-CNR), BOLOGNA, ITALY Jon T. JOHNSEN, Professor in Law, Faculty of law, University of Oslo, OSLO, NORWAY *** MEMBER STATE AZERBAIJAN / AZERBAIDJAN Leyla ZAKIROVA, Senior adviser, Ministry of Justice Khagani TAGHIYEV, Member, Judicial Legal Council, Chairman of Salyan District Court Islam ALIYEV, Chairman of the Sumgayit Administrative-Economic Court Aladdin JAFAROV, Chairman, Baku City Yasamal District Court Vidadi GASIMOV, Judge of the Sheki Court of Appeal Fermayil ZEYNALLI, Judge of the Sumgayit Court of Appeal INVITED STATES JORDAN / JORDANIE Muntaser AL-MASRI, Legal Researcher, Ministry of Justice MAROC / MOROCCO Abderrafi EROUIHANE, Directeur des études de la coopération et de la modernisation, Ministère de la Justice et des Libertés El Hassan EL GUASSEM, Directeur des Affaires Civiles , Ministère de la Justice et des Libertés M’Hammed ABDENABAOUI, Directeur des Affaires Pénales et des Grâces, Ministère de la Justice et des Libertés Abdelaziz FATHAOUI, Premier Président de la Cour d’Appel de Casablanca Karim HARROUCHE, Représentant du Secrétariat Général du Ministère de la Justice et des Libertés TUNISIA / TUNISIE Walid BEN ALI, Directeur des statistiques à l'Inspection générale, Ministère de la Justice Mohamed Moez LAROUSSI, Président de chambre, Substitut du Président du tribunal de première instance de Tunis Fathi ARROUM, Président du tribunal de première instance de Gabès *** OBSERVER EUROPEAN UNION OF RECHTSPFLEGER AND COURT CLERKS/UNION EUROPEENNEE DES GREFFIERS DE JUSTICE (EUR) Michel CRAMET, Directeur Délégué à l’Administration Régionale Judiciaire, Cour d'appel de LYON – France COUNCIL OF EUROPE/CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS (ECHR)/COUR EUROPEENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME Paola TONARELLI-LACORE, Registry of the European Court of Human Rights *** SECRETARIAT DGI - Human Rights and Rule of Law, Division for the independence and efficiency of justice Fax: +33 3 88 41 37 43 - E-mail: [email protected] Stéphane LEYENBERGER, Head of Division, Executive Secretary of the CEPE / Chef de la Division, Secrétaire exécutif de la CEPEJ, Tél: +33(0)3 88 41 34 12, e-mail: [email protected] Yannick MENECEUR, Administrator / Administratrice, Tél: +33 3 90 21 53 59, e-mail: [email protected] Annette SATTEL, Administration et réseaux, Tél : +33(0) 3 88 41 39 04, e-mail : [email protected] Elisabeth Heurtebise, Assitant, Assistante, Secretariat of the CEPEJ/ Secrétariat de la CEPEJ, e-mail : [email protected] Blerina BULICAB, Trainee / stagiaire INTERPRETERS Gillian WAKENHUT Michael HILL Julia TANNER |
|
[1] CEPEJ-SATURN (2014) 3 “Towards European Timeframes for judicial proceedings: an initial proposal.
[2] Annex 3 SATURN (2014)3 document
[3] The Calvez/Régis report
[4] Also the model suggests two target levels for the timeframes 75, 95 % for the first categorization (civil, administrative, criminal) and three target timeframes for the second categorization (priority, normal, complex) 20, 70, 10 %.
[5] Mikhno v. Ukraine & Svitlana Atamanyuk & others v. Ukraine, Topallaj v. Albania, Olivieri & others v Italy, L.E v. Greece, Valada Matos das Neves v. Portugal, Gallardo Sanchez v. Italy, Mocanu c/Rumania, Svinarenko & Slyadnev c/Russia, Vlad c/Rumania, Idalo c/Russia, Michelioudakis c/Greece, Gagliano Giorgio c/Italy.
[6]Strasbourg 14th of September 2016
[7] CEPEJ-SATURN (2015)2, Strasbourg, 22nd of June 2015.
[8] Joint work for the preparation of the evaluation grid.
[9] The document “On the guidelines of good practices in the information system” will be object of CEPEJ –GT Eval to measure the impact on the judicial timeframes.