Strasbourg, 4 juin 2013

CEPEJ-SATURN(2013)5

European Commission for the efficiency of justice

(CEPEJ)

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

13th meeting

Strasbourg, 5 and 6 mars 2013

MEETING REPORT

Report prepared by the Secretariat

Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law

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 13th meeting in Strasbourg on 5 and 6 March 2013, with Jacques BÜHLER (Switzerland) as Chair.

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

3.     The afternoon of the 6 March 2013 was dedicated to a meeting with the Moroccan High Institute of the Judicairy (see Appendix III for the agenda and a summary of the meeting)

1.     Information by the President, the Secretariat and expert members of the Steering Group

4.     The Secretariat introduced Najia RAHALI, Director or education, cooperation and modernisation of the Ministry of Justice, as well as Abderrafi EROUIHANE, Director of the school of Clerks, who accompanied Abdelmati EL KADDOURI, President of the administrative court in Agadir; who was also present at the last meeting of the SATURN committee in Gozo, Malta. They attended the meeting as observers from Morocco under the Joint Council of Europe/European Union Programme: “Strengthening Democratic Reform in the Southern neighbourhood”. 

5.     The Working group also welcomed Mr Michel CRAMET (France), Managing Director of the Regional Judicial Administration, of the Court of Appeal of Lyon, who represented the European Union of legal Clerks, who were present for the first time as observers to the SATURN group.

6.     The president of the CEPEJ, Mr John STACEY, was invited by the Turkish authorities to participate in a visit to the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors (HCJP) which took place in Ankara from the 14 to the 16 January 2013, also present were the Presidents of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) and of the Consultative Council of European Prosecutors (CCPE).

7.     The Secretariat stated that Muriel DECOT and Hasan HENDEK are in charge of the Secretariat of the CEPEJ-SATURN.

2.     Analysis of the 2010 data taken from the CEPEJ report

a.     Report on judicial timeframes in member States

8.     Following the examination of the results of the second stage of analysis of the data relevant to the number of affaires and the timeframes of proceedings, collected in the context of the CEPEJ report on the evaluation of judicial systems, the Group asked Marco FABRI to complete a report on the length of judicial proceedings. The Group also assigned him the task of analysing the data regarding the length of civil, criminal and administrative proceedings, data which was given by courts of reference designated by the CEPEJ in member States. These Data should be compared to national data (such as the data featured in the CEPEJ report) and if necessary any differences in data should be explained. The Secretariat is also requested to prepare a contract for Mr FABRI as soon as possible.

b.    Study on Appeal and Supreme Courts' Lengths of Proceedings in Council of Europe member states

9.     The Group CEPEJ-SATURN examined the up to date version (which included the data from the CEPEJ evaluation report 2010) of the “Study on Appeal and Supreme Courts' Lengths of Proceedings in Council of Europe member states” by Marco VELICOGNA (Italy).

10.  The group suggested that certain data and commentaries are verified with member States and that the general presentation and formatting of the document is modified. The Secretariat is responsible for modifying the format and for making a list of modifications regarding the content to be sent to the expert. The corrected document must be sent to the Secretariat by the beginning of June so that it can be submitted to the CEPEJ in view of its adoption at the next plenary meeting (21^st meeting, 20 and 21 June 2013).

3.     Data collection on length of civil, criminal and administrative proceedings, information provided by the CEPEJ courts of reference in member States.

a.     Assessment of the quality of data collected

11.  It was decided that the assessment of this data is to be done using data taken from the CEPEJ report 2010 because the information is of the same nature/type, even if the former are data relating to national level and the latter are data relating to certain courts (see also paragraph 10 supra).

b.    Preparation of a new version of the questionnaire and the explanatory notes

12.  The working group examined the questionnaire on the length of civil, criminal and administrative proceedings, to be completed by the CEPEJ’ courts of reference, as well as the explanatory notes (Documents CEPEJ-SATURN (2012) 13 and 12). Some categories having been added since the last version was sent to courts in 2012; The examination of the responses to the questionnaire has shown that it is necessary to make the questionnaire even more specific in order to improve the quality of the responses in the next cycle.

13.  The Group instructed the Secretariat to include these modifications in the questionnaire and to adapt the explanatory notes. The new version shall be submitted to the group in view of its adoption at the next meeting (14^th meeting of the CEPEJ-SATURN 25 and 27 September 2013). This questionnaire can be tested in 2013 by 5 courts of reference.

c.     Continuation of data collection

14.  The working group and Mr FABRI thanked the courts of reference for their regular responses to their questions. The group underlined that the responses sent by the pilot courts are sometimes not very good quality and that some courts are more active than others. The group therefore instructed the CEPEJ to make a list of courts where cooperation with the CEPEJ is insignificant or inexistent, (even after the courts have received reminders sent by the Secretariat). New courts have put themselves forward, via the members of the CEPEJ, to participate in the network of courts of reference. It is possible to envisage that the inactive courts are replaced by these new candidates.

4.     Adaptation of SATURN guidelines on judicial time management

a.     Revision of SATURN guidelines

15.  The group examined the revised draft of the SATURN guidelines (Document CEPEJ-SATURN (2013)14). A section on new technologies should be added. The Secretariat is instructed to finalise the document and to update the French version accordingly, for the next meeting. The revised guidelines should be submitted to the CEPEJ for their adoption at the next meeting (22^nd meeting 5 and 6 December 2013).

b.    Examination of the observations and examples of application concerning the SATURN guidelines.

16.  The group also examined the document “Observations and examples of application concerning the SATURN Guidelines for judicial time management” (Document CEPEJ-SATURN (2013)15) prepared by Marco FABRI and N. CARBONI.

17.  The group agreed upon the scope of the document and entrusted the Secretariat with the responsibility of sending the document to the members of the CEPEJ for comment. The group emphasised that the document should evolve and that new examples must be used to improve it in the future. The modified report shall also be on the agenda of the next meeting in September.

5.     Definition of the objectives of judicial timeframes

18.  Marco FABRI presented a project that investigates judicial timeframes, started recently in cooperation with the Secretariat, the investigation consists of replies of pilot courts to a questionnaire. The questionnaire which was sent to them aims at gathering up to date information regarding actual timeframes in member States, as well as indications concerning the concept of “reasonable time” in judicial proceedings. The aim of the investigation is to prepare a study : “Towards European Shared Timeframes”

19.  The question asked is in reality very simple, formulated in the form of a table which courts complete by ticking boxes and giving comments.

“Do timeframes/legal instruments concerning the reasonableness (adequacy, appropriateness, opportunity) of deadlines in judicial proceedings exist?”

20.  Having received a relatively low number of replies for such a question, which can be answered quickly, the Secretariat is asked to chase up the Courts who have still not responded and to send them reminders to encourage them to reply promptly.

6.     Analysis of recent jurisprudence of the European court of human rights (the Court) concerning the requirement of reasonable time

21.  The CEPEJ-SATURN reiterates its request that, between now and the next meeting, the Secretariat checks if the measures, which aim at reducing the length of proceedings, have been put into practice and if they are effective. These measures are proposed in the Courts’ pilot judgments and can be consulted in the report of the service for the execution of Court judgments.

7.     The promotion and diffusion of SATURN tools for judicial time management

a.     Implementation of the support program in Italy

22.  Giacomo OBERTO told the group that he has visited the Court of Appeal of Syracuse (Italy) on the 12^th October 2012 to present the SATURN tools and the tests carried out in the Court of Appeal of Turin (Italy) concerning procedural timeframes. The group was also informed that the President of the Court of Appeal of Syracuse will make a formal application to be coached by the CEPEJ, during the month of May 2013 or as soon as possible. It was agreed that the President of the CEPEJ-SATURN and Mr OBERTO will participate, which means that the coaching can take place in Italian without the need for interpretation.

b.    Follow-up of the cooperation with Morocco

23.  The president of the CEPEJ-SATURN indicated that, in the context of the joint program between the European Union and the Council of Europe, “Strengthening democratic reform in the southern Neighbourhood”, a round table will take place on the afternoon of the 6^th March. The round table will be on the subject of initial and continuous training of judges and court personnel, Moroccan delegates will be present. The aims of this round table are: to inform participants about the CEPEC project in Morocco, to exchange experiences concerning the length of initial training, the contents of the syllabus, particularly concerning case management, recent and projected reforms of the syllabus, the frequency and the contents of continuous training and finally to discuss the objectives of the  of the meeting to take place at the ISM in April 2013 (see also the summary of discussions regarding training of judges, appendix III).

c.     Initialisation of cooperation with Turkey

24.  Jon T. JOHNSEN and Mrs I. BORZOVA informed the Group that they participated at a meeting in Ankara (Turkey) which took place on the 27 and 28 February 2013 concerning a SATURN project in three Turkish courts: the courts of Amasya and Erzurum as well as the administrative court of Ankara.

25.  In this context, the question is whether it is useful to extend the SATURN guidelines to include prosecutors’ functions. The CEPEJ-SATURN decided to add this question to the agenda of the next meeting of pilot courts (Strasbourg, 26 September 2013).

 

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.            Analysis of the CEPEJ Report 2010 data collected

Analyse des données 2010 tirées du rapport CEPEJ

1. Report on judicial timeframes in member states

Rapport sur les délais judiciaires

2. Updating of the Study on Council of Europe Member States on Appeal and Supreme Courts' Lengths of Proceedings by Marco Velicogna, IRSIG-CNR

Mise à jour de l’Etude de la durée des procédures dans les juridictions d’appel et suprêmes dans les pays membres du Conseil de l’Europe par Marco Velicogna, IRSIG-CNR

4.            Collection of data on timeframes of civil, criminal and administrative proceedings from the CEPEJ pilot courts in member States

Collecte de données sur la durée des procédures civiles, pénales et administratives auprès des tribunaux référents de la CEPEJ dans les Etats membres

1. Evaluation of the quality of the data collected and comparison with national data 

Évaluation de la qualité des données collectées et comparaison avec les données nationales

2. Adoption of a new version of the questionnaire and its explanatory note

Adoption d’une nouvelle version du questionnaire et de sa note explicative

           

3. Continuation of the data collection

Continuation de la collecte des données

5.            Adaptation of the SATURN Guidelines

Adaptation des lignes directrices SATURN

           

a.              Adoption of amended SATURN Guidelines

Adoption des lignes directrices SATURN modifiées

b.              Examination of the SATURN Guidelines - Comments and implementation examples

Examen des lignes directrices SATURN – Observations et exemples d’application

6.            Definition of targets for judicial timeframes

Définition d’objectifs en matière de délais judiciaires

a.              Presentation of results of questionnaires sent to pilot courts and national correspondents

Présentation des résultats de questionnaires envoyés aux tribunaux référents et aux correspondants nationaux

b.      Examination of a document on standard timeframes for the duration of proceedings per case category, to be indicated as a volume of cases to be addressed by the court in a given period

Examen d’un document sur la durée standard des procédures par catégories d’affaires exprimées en pourcentage d’affaire que la juridiction compétente devrait traiter dans un laps de temps donné

7.            Recent ECtHR case law to the reasonable time criterion

Jurisprudence récente de la CrEDH quant au critère du délai raisonnable

8.            Continuous improvement of data collection

            Amélioration continue des données collectées

9.            Promotion and dissemination of SATURN judicial time management tools

Promotion et diffusion des outils SATURN de gestion des délais judiciaires

a.           Launching of the coaching programme in Italy

Lancement du programme d’appui en Italie

b.           Follow-up of the co-operation with Albania

Suivi de la coopération avec l’Albanie

c.           Follow-up of the cooperation with Morocco

Suivi de la coopération avec le Maroc

d.           Initialisation of the co-operation with Turkey

Initialisation de la coopération avec la Turquie

e.           Other coaching programmes

Autres programmes d'appui

meeting with the SATURN members, members of the Lisbon Network and the High Institute of Magistrates of Morocco

Réunion avec les membres du Groupe SATURN, des membres du Réseau de Lisbonne et  l’Institut Supérieur de la Magistrature du Maroc

Appendix II

List of Participants / Liste des participants

Irakli ADEISHVILI, Chairman, Chamber of Civil Cases, Tbilisi City Court, 6, David Aghmashenebeli Kheivani 12-th, TBILISI 0131, GEORGIA

Ivana BORZOVÁ, Head, Department of Civil Supervision, Ministry of Justice, Vysehradská 16, 128 10 PRAGUE 2, CZECH REPUBLIC

Jacques BÜHLER, Secrétaire Général suppléant, Tribunal fédéral suisse, Avenue du Tribunal fédéral 29, CH-1000 LAUSANNE 14, SUISSE (Chair of the Group / Président du Groupe)

Francesco DEPASQUALE,Ministry representative, Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs, 184 St Lucia Street, VALLETTA 1189, MALTA

Jon T. JOHNSEN, Professor in Law, Faculty of law, University of Oslo, NORWAY,  Postboks 6706, St. Olavs plass, N-0130 OSLO, Norway

Giacomo OBERTO, Magistrat, Tribunal de Grande Instance, via San Francesco d'Assisi 14, I - 10122 TURIN, ITALIE

John STACEY, International Consultant for Court Administration, 57 Lynford Way, Rushden, Northamptonshire, NN10 9LZ, UNITED KINGDOM (Chair of the CEPEJ / Président de la CEPEJ)

Invited State / Pays invité

Najia RAHALI, Directrice des études, de la coopération et de la modernisation, Ministre de la Justice, RABAT

Abdelmati EL KADDOURI, Président du Tribunal administratif, AGADIR, MAROC

Abderrafi EROUIHANE, Directeur de la formation des secrétaires greffiers, Institut supérieur de la Magistrature, Ministère de la justice, BP 1007 avenue Mehdi Ben Barka Souissi, RABAT

Scientific ExpertS / Expert scientifique

Marco FABRI, Director, Research Institute on Judicial Systems, National Research Council (IRSIG-CNR), Via Zamboni 26, 40126 BOLOGNA, ITALY

OBSERVERS / OBSERVATEURS

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 - SAR - 35, rue Saint Jean - CS 50029 - 69321 LYON Cedex 05, FRANCE

EUROPEAN COMMISSION / COMMISSION EUROPEENNE :

Council of the European Union / Conseil de l’Union européenne

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (LIBE COMMISSION) / PARLEMENT EUROPEEN  (COMMISSION LIBE) 

 WORLD BANK / BANQUE MONDIALE : Apologised / Excusée

COUNCIL OF EUROPE / CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE

SECRETARIAT

Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law (DGI) - Division for the Independence and Efficiency of Justice /

Direction Générale droits de l’Homme et Etat de droit (DGI) -  Division pour l’indépendance et l’efficacité de la justice

 Fax: +33 (0)3 88 41 37 43 / E-mail : [email protected]

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

Muriel DECOT,Co-Secretary of the CEPEJ / Co-secrétaire de la CEPEJ

Hasan HENDEK, Special Advisor to the Secretariat of the CEPEJ, Special Counselor to the Secretariat of the CEPEJ / Conseiller spécial auprès du Secrétariat de la CEPEJ

Clementina BARBARO, Administraor / Administratrice

Hamit YUMUK,ANKARA

Jean-Pierre GEILLER, Documentation

Annette SATTEL, Administration et Réseaux

Elisabeth HEURTEBISE, Assistant/Assistante

INTERPRETERS / INTERPRETES

Amanda BEDDOWS

Nicolas GUITTONNEAU

Monique PALMIER

Appendix III

Programme de la Table Ronde du 6 mars 2013

Synthèse des discussions sur la formation des magistrats

• M. Erouhiane a fait part des défis qui se posent en matière de sélection des candidats-juges. Les dossiers adressés pour admission à l'examen seraient d’environ 15000 ; les dossiers retenus pour la participation à l'examen d'entrée - après sélection selon des critères vérifiables dans le dossier - seraient 6 fois supérieur au nombre de postes à pourvoir. En 2012, 1800 étudiants ont passé l'examen d'entrée pour 300 postes à pourvoir mais seulement 247 ont réussi l’examen. Cette situation pourrait s’expliquer par une préparation insuffisante des candidats à l'université. Selon Mme Rahali, les 57 postes non pourvus, destinés à des juges spécialisés (juges commerciaux, administratifs, etc.), feront l'objet prochainement d'un nouveau concours spécifique.

·         Une réflexion est en cours au sein de la Haute Instance pour le dialogue national sur la réforme de la justice concernant le mandat et les compétences de l’ISM. Dans le passé, des critiques ont été formulées :

- sur la durée insuffisante de la formation ;

- sur le caractère inapproprié des critères de sélection (notamment l'âge requis et le type de diplôme, qui actuellement est un BAC+3).

·         Des propositions de réforme devraient être adoptées d’ici fin mars et viseraient en particulier :

- le rattachement de l’ISM au Conseil Supérieur de la Magistrature, et non plus au Ministère de la Justice ;

- la modification de l’âge d’accès à l’examen d’admission (à présent, 21 ans) ;

- la durée de la formation initiale, qui passerait de 22 à 36 mois ;

- la refonte totale des curricula de formation qui seraient axés sur l’acquisition des compétences et pas uniquement du savoir ;

- l’introduction d’une formation spécialisée en fin de cycle.

• L'établissement d'un corps de formateurs professionnels rattaché de manière permanente à l'ISM est également envisagé. L'ISM compte actuellement 3 formateurs permanents pour 57 engagés sur une base ad hoc.

• L’Ecole Nationale de la Magistrature prête également une assistance en ce qui concerne le développement d’un module de formation continue pour les chefs de juridiction en matière de gestion des flux d’affaires et gestion financière. Mme Rahali mentionne que le Ministère de la Justice envisage de créer un poste de secrétaire général de tribunal ayant pour tâche la gestion des ressources humaines et matérielles.

• A vérifier : La formation continue n'est pas réellement obligatoire, mais les juges participent régulièrement aux formations car elles sont déterminantes pour l'avancement professionnel. Les juges avanceraient les frais de déplacement et de séjour, qui seraient par la suite remboursées par l'ISM.

• Le contenu de la formation continue est déterminé suite à un processus de consultation des juges des différentes instances, qui démarre au mois de mars de chaque année. La décision finale sur les sujets de formation retenus est prise par le Conseil d'Administration de l'ISM au mois de novembre.