Strasbourg, 30 September 2011

CEPEJ-SATURN(2011)11

EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE

(CEPEJ)

Steering Group of the SATURN Centre for judicial time management (CEPEJ-SATURN)

10th meeting

Strasbourg, 21 and 23 September 2011

MEETING REPORT

Report prepared by the Secretariat

Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs

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 10th meeting in Strasbourg on 21 and 23 September 2011, with Jacques BÜHLER (Switzerland) in the Chair.

2.     The meeting participants also took part in the plenary meeting of the network of pilot courts which was held on 22 September 2011.

3.     The agenda and list of participants are appended to this report (Appendix I and II respectively).

1. Information by the President, the Secretariat and expert members of the SATURN Centre

4.     The President of the CEPEJ, John STACEY, announced that he had represented the CEPEJ at the General Assembly of the European Union of Rechstpfleger in Bucharest from 14 to 18 September 2011.

5.     The Secretariat introduced Maria ORESHKINA, who had recently joined the division as a lawyer.

2. Qualitative approach to the management of timeframes: implementation of the court coaching programme for the proper use of SATURN tools

Finalisation of a handbook for implementing SATURN tools in courts

6.     The group discussed the draft handbook (CEPEJ-SATURN(2011)9) for courts which wished to implement the protocol for applying the SATURN tools for judicial time management.

Draft explanatory notes to the SATURN Guidelines

10.  The group considered that document CEPEJ-SATURN(2011)10 prepared by Jacques BÜHLER was a good working basis, which would have to be finalised by an expert, in particular with a view to illustrating each of the guidelines with examples from the Compendium of best practices (CEPEJ(2006)12Rev), the report on implementation of the guidelines by the pilot courts (CEPEJ-SATURN(2011)1) and, if appropriate, the report by Françoise CALVEZ (CEPEJ Study No 3).

12.  The group also wished the SATURN Guidelines to be published in hard-copy format.  The publication could include the guidelines and the implementation handbook.  However, the explanatory notes would have to remain a dynamic document which was only published online.

Implementation of the court coaching programme on SATURN tools

13.  To date, two courts had volunteered for a coaching session on implementing SATURN tools: Freiburg court (Germany) and Novi Travnik court (Bosnia and Herzegovina).  Contacts were under way to agree the implementation arrangements.

14.  Jacques BÜHLER offered to lead the coaching session in Freiburg.

15.  In general, all the group members said they were willing to take part in such sessions depending on their other commitments.

3. Quantitative approach

Study on Council of Europe member states’ appeal and supreme courts’ lengths of proceedings

17.  No comments had been received from the member states concerning the draft report by Marco VELICOGNA (CEPEJ(2011)3), following the call made at the 17th plenary meeting of the CEPEJ.

20.  The group agreed that this was an initial exercise which would have to be repeated and updated regularly following the next rounds of evaluation of judicial systems.

Comparability of different data available, definition of common concrete situations

21.  The group prepared for the discussions in the pilot court workshops, which were asked to define categories of cases in civil, criminal and administrative matters which could be covered in in-depth studies on a uniform basis.  The aim was to check the relevance of the categories already employed in the CEPEJ’s general evaluation exercise and supplement them with other categories which could be taken into account in the context of the observatory of judicial timeframes.

22.  Following the pilot courts’ meeting, the group agreed to include the following categories:

a. Civil matters

For the time being:

Þ      Cases involving marital breakdown (contested divorces or judicial separations, depending on national procedures, and disputes concerning the dissolution of matrimonial property regimes)

Þ      Cases involving co-ownership

Þ      Cases involving property leases

Þ      Cases involving insolvency and bankruptcy

Þ      Cases involving intellectual property

It was noted that data on dismissal cases (which were currently included in the CEPEJ’s general evaluation exercise) were not available in all member states.  These data should be extended to all labour law cases.

Cases involving civil liability in road traffic accidents, medical liability and international sales of movable property, which the group had proposed initially, were not included.

b.    Criminal matters

For the time being:

Þ      Robbery cases

Þ      Murder cases

Þ      Rape cases

Þ      Child sex exploitation cases

Consistent data could be collected for corruption and money-laundering cases, but the volume of cases concerned was not likely to be significant.

Cases involving drug trafficking were also mentioned, but the category was deemed too broad given the very many different situations involved.

c.     Administrative matters

For the time being:

Þ      Cases involving the granting of planning permission

Þ      Cases involving the dismissal of public servants

Þ      Cases involving the taxation of individuals

Þ      Cases involving public procurement

Cases involving asylum law were also mentioned but were deemed to be too politically sensitive and too closely related to the economic situation to be dealt with properly through the observatory of judicial timeframes.

The experts agreed that referral to the courts should be taken as the start of the proceedings (rather than any prior applications to the authorities to reconsider their decisions).

24.  The Steering Group of the SATURN Centre would contact the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL to discuss the categories once they had been defined.  It would then be necessary to validate the definitions and test the collection of data concerning the categories at the pilot courts.

25.  The practical arrangements for collecting data concerning the flow and length of the relevant cases would then have to be agreed.  The experts agreed that an observatory of judicial timeframes would have to be responsive and be able to operate on a long-term basis; methods which complemented the CEPEJ’s biennial evaluation exercise would therefore have to be found.

26.  The group also agreed to study the glossary prepared by Marco FABRI at its next meeting.

4. Strategy of the SATURN Centre for implementing a European observatory of timeframes

27.  The group studied the draft prepared by Jacques BÜHLER (CEPEJ-SATURN(2011)5Rev).

29.  The group also proposed taking stock of developments in the European Court of Human Rights’ case-law on length of proceedings before each of its meetings.

5. Information about Finnish project (New way of systematic management of delay-reduction projects in courts)

30.  The group was informed about the project which had received a special mention in the 2010 Crystal Scales of Justice competition and had been presented at the CEPEJ’s 17th plenary meeting.[1]

6. Follow-up

31.  The group agreed to continue its work in line with Appendix III below.

32.  The Secretariat was also instructed to send reminders to member states which were not represented in the network of pilot courts.

Appendix I

AGENDA / ORDRE DU JOUR

1.         Opening of the meeting / Ouverture de la réunion

2.         Information by the President and members of the Group and the Secretariat /

Information du Président et membres du Groupe et du Secrétariat

3.         Qualitative approach of the management of the timeframes: implementation of the court coaching programme for the proper use of the SATURN tools /

Approche qualitative de la gestion des délais de procédure: Mise en oeuvre de la formation des tribunaux pour la bonne utilisation des outils SATURN

           

a.     Finalisation of a Handbook for implementing SATURN tools in courts /

Finalisation d'un Manuel pour la mise en œuvre des outils SATURN dans les tribunaux

               Rapporteur: Jon T. JOHNSEN

b.    Draft explanatory notes to the SATURN Guidelines/

               Projet de note explicative aux Lignes directrices SATURN

               Rapporteur: Jacques BÜHLER

c.     Implementation of the court coaching programme on SATURN tools /

               Mise en œuvre du programme de formation des tribunaux aux outils SATURN

4.         Quantitative approach / Approche quantitative

a.     Finalisation of the study on Council of Europe member states appeal and supreme courts’ lengths of proceedings /

Finalisation de l'Etude des délais de procédure dans les Etats membres du Conseil de l'Europe en appel et au niveau des cours suprêmes

b.    Comparability of different data available, definition of common concrete situations (on the basis of prior discussions with the pilot courts)  /

Comparabilité de données disponibles, définition de données concrètes communes (sur la base de discussions préalables avec les tribunaux-référents)

               Rapporteurs: J. Bühler, G. Oberto and M. Fabri

5.         Preparation of the meeting with the Network of pilot courts (22 September) / Préparation de la réunion avec le Réseau des tribunaux-référents (22 septembre)

6.         Strategy of the SATURN Centre for implementing an European observatory on the timeframes /

Stratégie du Centre SATURN pour la mise en œuvre d’un observatoire européen des délais de procédure

         Rapporteur: Jacques BÜHLER

7.         Information about the Finnish project (New way of systematic management of delay reduction in courts /

Information sur le projet finlandais "Nouvelle démarche en vue d'une gestion systématique de projets de réduction des délais au sein des tribunaux"

Rapporteur: Jacques Bühler

8.         Follow up to the work / Suivi des travaux

Appendix II

List of Participants / Liste des participants

Irakli ADEISHVILI, Chairman, Chamber of Civil Cases, Tbilisi City Court, TBILISI, GEORGIA,

Jacques BÜHLER, Secrétaire Général suppléant, Tribunal fédéral suisse, LAUSANNE, SUISSE, (Chair of the Group / Président du Groupe)

Francesco DEPASQUALE, Ministry representative, Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs, VALLETTA, MALTA

Jon T. JOHNSEN, Professor in Law, OSLO, Norway

Giacomo OBERTO, Magistrat, Tribunal de Grande Instance, TURIN, ITALIE

John STACEY, Deputy Head of Civil Law and Justice Division, Access to Justice Directorate, Ministry of Justice, LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM (Chair of the CEPEJ/Président de la CEPEJ)

Jana WURSTOVA, Lawyer, Adviser, Czech Bar Association, PRAGUE, Czech republic

Scientific Expert / ExpertS scientifique

Marco FABRI, Research Institute on Judicial Systems, National Research Council, BOLOGNA, ITALY

OBSERVER / OBSERVATEUR

EUROPEAN UNION OF RECHTSPFLEGER AND COURT CLERKS/UNION EUROPEENNE DES GREFFIERS DE JUSTICE (EUR)

Michel CRAMET, Directeur Délégué à L'Administration Régionale Judiciaire, Cour d'appel de LYON, LYON, FRANCE

OTHER EXPERT / AUTRE EXPERT

Alessandro BOLLETTINARI, University of Turin, ITALY

SECRETARIAT

Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs (DG-HL) -

Justice Division /

Direction générale des droits de l’Homme et affaires juridiques (DG-HL) -

Division de la Justice

Fax: +33 3 88 41 37 43 - E-mail: [email protected]

Stéphane LEYENBERGER, Secretary of the CEPEJ / Secrétaire de la CEPEJ

Maria ORESHKINA, Administrative assistant / Assistante administrative

 

Jean-Pierre GEILLER, Documentation

Annette SATTEL, Communication

Elisabeth HEURTEBISE, Assistant / Assistante

Juliette JEAN, Trainee / Stagiaire

Interpreters / Interprètes

William VALK

Isabelle MARCHINI

 

 

Annexe III – Follow up
Task	Who?	When?	Status
Project 1 – Recapitulation and data collection
Mandate given to a scientific expert for analysing data from the evaluation cycle (in coordination with projects 5, 6 and 7)	Secretariat	Spring 2012
Add data from the 2010 – 2012 evaluation cycle	Scientific expert	Summer 2012
Project 2 – Data collection from pilot courts
Questionnaire 2009/2010 based on EUGMONT to be examined at the next SATURN meeting	Secretariat	SATURN meeting spring 2012
Project 2a - Update ECtHR case law
Synthesis of the case law established by the Swiss Ministry of Justice		SATURN meeting spring 2012
Project 3 - Digest of the ECtHR case law
Digest of the relevant case law until the end of 2011	Scientific expert	SATURN meeting spring 2012	under work
Project 4 – Data collection from the ECtHR
Request to the ECtHR	Secretariat	until the end of 2011
Delivery of statistics	ECtHR	SATURN meeting spring 2012
Project 5 - Evaluating and improving the completeness of data
Mandate given to a scientific expert for analysing data from the evaluation cycle (in coordination with projects 1, 6 and 7)	Secretariat	Spring 2012
Examination and report	Scientific expert	SATURN meeting spring 2013
Project 6 - Evaluating the quality of the data collected
Definition of common case categories	Civil law (Giacomo Oberto) Criminal law (Francesco Depasquale) adm.law (Jacques Bühler)	SATURN meeting spring 2012
Discussion about the definitions and the modalities for data collection	SATURN group	SATURN meeting spring 2012
Definitions sent the to the pilot courts	Secretariat	Summer 2012
Discussion about the definitions with the pilot courts	SATURN group	SATURN meeting autumn 2012
Mandate given to a scientific expert for analysing data from the evaluation cycle (in coordination with projects 1, 5 and 7)	Secretariat	Spring 2012
Examination and report	Scientific expert	SATURN meeting spring 2013
Project 7 - Report on judicial timeframes in member states
Mandate given to a scientific expert for analysing data from the evaluation cycle (in coordination with projects 1, 5 and 6)	Secretariat	Spring 2012
Report	Scientific expert	SATURN meeting spring 2013
Project 8 - Adaptation of the SATURN Guidelines
Discussion	SATURN group	SATURN meeting spring 2012
Project 9 - Definition of standards
Draft mandate to a scientific expert	Chair SATURN group	SATURN meeting spring 2012
Adoption of the mandate	SATURN group	SATURN meeting spring 2012
Project 10 - Targeted informational actions
/
Project 11 - IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SATURN-GUIDELINES
11.1 Handbook
Modifications --> V3	Secretariat	October 2011
Review	Jon T. Johnsen	November 2011
Adoption	SATURN-Members	December 2011
Sent to the pilot courts with invitation to implement the SATURN Guidelines (with or without coaching)	Secretariat	January 2012
11.2 Comments and examples to the SATURN guidelines
Mandate to a scientific expert	Secretariat	October 2011
Draft document	Scientific expert	SATURN meeting spring 2012
11.3 Implementation of the Court coaching project
Organisation of the coaching Germany, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Albania	Secretariat
Other tasks
Survey based on the Checklist	Pilot courts	2nd priority
Search of new pilot and/or representative courts	Secretariat, SATURN members	permanent task