Strasbourg, 27 September 2013

CEPEJ-SATURN(2013)16

EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE

(CEPEJ)

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

14th meeting

Strasbourg, 25 and 27 September 2013

MEETING REPORT

Report prepared by the Secretariat

Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law

I.                      Introduction

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 14th meeting in Strasbourg on 25 and 27 September 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.             26 September 2013 was dedicated to the 8th meeting of the Network of the pilot courts of the CEPEJ. The afternoon of 27 September 2013 was dedicated to a meeting with the Moroccan delegation responsible for co-operation between the CEPEJ and Morocco (see Appendix III for the programme of the meeting and a summary of discussions).

II.                    Information from the President, members of the Group and the Secretariat

4.             The Secretariat informed the participants that the CEPEJ was expected to co-operate in the European Commission’s “Justice Scoreboard” and that considerable data concerned procedural timeframes. It also gave information on a co-operation programme with Albania aimed at implementing the SATURN tools.

5.             The Chair welcomed the Turkish delegation, attending for the first time to acquaint itself with the current work of the SATURN Group and to present the results of co-operation between the CEPEJ and Turkey, particularly on implementation of the SATURN tools.

6.             The Chair gave a general presentation of the SATURN Group’s work.

III.                   Different CEPEJ-SATURN projects

A.            Report on judicial timeframes

7.             Mr Marco FABRI, scientific expert, presented the draft report which he had written at the request of the SATURN Group, entitled “European Uniform Guidelines for Monitoring Judicial Timeframes (EUGMONT) – Data analysis of pilot court replies – 2011 Data”[1] (Document CEPEJ-SATURN(2013)14).

8.             The expert recalled that the data, which related to the general points of procedure, particulars of certain cases and duration of cases, had been collected in 2009 and 2011 from the pilot courts, with the second collection involving more types of cases than the first. Replies had been received from courts representing 19 states, 25 out of 59 courts in all, a rate of reply which was not wholly satisfactory.

9.             To improve data collection, various suggestions were discussed. It would be necessary to consider:

Ø     convincing the courts that by belonging to the Network of the pilot courts of the CEPEJ they participated in a joint effort of reflection aimed at perfecting a tool of European scope; this Network was thus far more than a mere instrument at the service of the CEPEJ;

Ø     bearing in mind that the replies to the various questionnaires were not always easy to give as the questionnaires had to suit 47 different states with as many legal traditions and different ways of working;

Ø     introducing greater flexibility in the requested data, by accepting the data as collected at the national level with their own typology, and not imposing with a certain typology; for instance, courts might be asked to supply the data which they had to transmit annually to the national authorities (with the risk of receiving too much), or the data which the courts themselves considered relevant for assessing the performance of the courts (with the risk that certain courts might not transmit any data because they considered their performance non-problematic);

Ø     limiting the general questions to the courts as a whole and targeting them more closely by creating sub-groups of courts;

Ø     accepting the feasibility of analysis with data for a few courts only;

Ø     distinguishing between availability of the requested information and willingness to disclose it, the 1^st aspect depending on computerisation of the courts and the statistical system, the 2^nd aspect being more sensitive and requiring thorough reflection in order to motivate the delivery of data;

Ø     at all events, identifying the courts which had replied and those which never did so, and drawing the appropriate conclusions.

10.          After this exchange of views, the group proposed to instruct Mr Marco FABRI, by making an analysis of the 2009 and 2011 data, to identify a more limited group of courts (5-10) having supplied adequate data of good quality, so that this co-operation could then be developed (the inclusion of the Milton Keynes Magistrates' Court in the United Kingdom and the Czech courts was suggested at that stage).

B.            Updating of the Study on Council of Europe Member States Appeal and Supreme Courts' Lengths of Proceedings

11.          The group examined the improvements made by Mr Marco Velicogna (Italy), as requested by the SATURN group at its previous meeting, to the report entitled “Study on Council of Europe member states appeal and supreme courts’ lengths of proceedings”, Edition 2012 (2006 – 2010 data) (Document CEPEJ(2013)8). A call had also been issued to the members of the CEPEJ at its last plenary meeting to verify their respective national data contained in the report. The CEPEJ-GT-SATURN adopted the document.

C.            Questionnaire for collection of data from the CEPEJ pilot courts

12.          Owing to the change of working method for collection of data from the pilot courts (see item 10 above), the group thanked the Secretariat for having amended the questionnaire and the explanatory note, and decided not to use it for the time being (Document CEPEJ-SATURN(2012)13REV).

D.            Finalisation of the amended SATURN guidelines

           

13.          The CEPEJ-GT-SATURN examined the draft amended SATURN guidelines for judicial time management (document CEPEJ-SATURN(2008)8REV2) in accordance with the suggestions put forward by the Group at its previous meeting. It adopted the draft and decided to submit it to the CEPEJ for adoption at its next plenary meeting (5-6 December 2013).

14.          In the context of the CEPEJ’s co-operation activities currently in progress in Turkey concerning the implementation of the SATURN tools, there arose the question whether the guidelines in their present state were applicable to prosecutors or whether they should be amplified by specific provisions applicable to prosecutors. At the proposal of the Turkish delegation responsible for the programme, it was agreed to wait a few months in order to analyse the results of work with the Turkish prosecutors, before contemplating a possible revision of the guidelines to include prosecutors. The Turkish delegation proposed to be associated if appropriate with the revision of the guidelines.

E.            Comments and examples concerning the amended SATURN guidelines

15.          The group noted that in connection with the document “SATURN Guidelines for judicial time management - Comments and implementation examples”, a call for updating issued to the members of the CEPEJ and the network of pilot courts had elicited no response. It decided to issue a similar call at the meeting of pilot courts.

6. Definition of targets for judicial timeframes

16.          Mr Marco FABRI presented the draft report which he had drawn up at the request of the SATURN Group, entitled “Towards European timeframes for judicial proceedings” (Document CEPEJ-SATURN(2013)13). The report set out to define targets for timeframes, for the attention of courts.

17.          The expert recalled that the initial questionnaire had been divided into two separate questionnaires, one for national correspondents (3 questions), the other for pilot courts (19 questions). He noted that despite the 3 reminders sent, 32 replies had been obtained from among the 47 national correspondents (68%). Of the 59 pilot courts, 36 had replied (61 %). It should be noted that 14 Turkish courts had replied; for a proper balance, the expert said that he had only included 4 of them but nevertheless thanked all the Turkish courts participating in the exercise.

18.          Owing to the large number of missing replies, it was proposed to take advantage of the next day’s meeting of pilot courts and the meeting of national correspondents on 18 October to hand the questionnaire respectively to the courts (to be answered immediately or by the end of September at the latest) and to the national correspondents (to be answered immediately or by the end of October at the latest). It was also agreed to call a final halt to data collection in November.

19.          Substantively, Mr Jon Johnsen (Norway) proposed that the analysis of the replies be adapted by collating them with other replies obtained in connection with other SATURN studies (particularly the Calvez/Régis report analysing the concept of reasonable time according to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights). Another possibility was to propose some categories of “reasonable time” and to ask the courts in which category they were placed (for example, 90% of cases must be settled in a 24 month timeframe). Only once this data item was available would it then be possible to break down the replies by specific categories of cases (contentious, non-contentious, complex or not, urgent, etc.).

20.          It was suggested that during the possible co-operation between the CEPEJ and the European Commission on the “Justice Scoreboard”, a single question be put to the 28 European Union Member States; the question might be “What, in your country, is reasonable time for a contentious civil case?”, for example.

21.          The expert recalled that the analysis of the replies showed that countries were not at the same level of thinking and development with regard to the collection and analysis of data on timeframes. Furthermore, the analysis did not invite the conclusion that setting reasonable time limits was the right answer and their absence was the wrong answer, which in effect questioned the expediency of setting objectives with regard to timeframes.

22.          The group agreed at this stage to instruct the expert to carry on his task by operating in three phases:

Ø     collecting and analysing the data received up to late November 2013, with the freedom to withdraw certain collected data from his analysis if that would simplify the exercise or if those data proved less relevant;

Ø     setting objectives with regard to timeframes on the basis of the data gathered, taking account of ECtHR case law and of litigants’ expectations (it was not yet decided whether these objectives would concern procedural stages or types or categories of cases).

23.          The CEPEJ-GT-SATURN would then test these objectives on a small number of pilot courts.

G.            Recent case law of the European Court of Human Rights as to the reasonable time criterion

24.          Since the previous meeting there had been no recent ECtHR case law as to the reasonable time criterion of relevance to the SATURN Group. The Chair would prepare a synopsis of case law since July 2012, the terminal date of the Calvez/Régis report.

H.            Continuous improvement of data collected

25.          The SATURN Group examined the list, prepared by the Secretariat, of the replies missing from (i) the evaluation report on judicial systems, 2010 edition, and (ii) the questionnaire sent to the pilot courts concerning objectives with regard to judicial timeframes. The document (Document CEPEJ(2013)15) aimed at an analysis of the states which had not been able to answer all the questions asked by the CEPEJ concerning procedural delays and to apprehend the reasons behind them.

26.          The Secretariat pointed out that it was a very provisional document requiring improvement to be fully in line with the expectations of the working group.

27.          The CEPEJ-GT-SATURN asked the Secretariat to amend the document for the next meeting according to the following indications:

Ø     limit the document to the main categories of questions (questions 91 and 94 for 1st instance and the equivalent questions for the higher courts, as well as questions 101 and 102 relating to the four types of cases);

Ø     confine oneself to identifying the states which had not replied at all to the questions and not take account of the states which had answered “NAP” (Not applicable) as this usually meant that jurisdiction in a given area belonged to another court;

Ø     base the compilation of the list on the replies to the questions and not on the tables in the report;

 

Ø     not confine oneself to reviewing the replies for the year 2010 but take account of the other years as certain states might meet with difficulties in delivering replies for a given year.

28.          Contribution of the CEPEJ-SATURN Group to the work of the CEPEJ-GT-QUAL

29.          Pursuant to the discussions during the meeting of the network of pilot courts, the Chair of the CEPEJ-SATURN proposed adding to the agenda consideration of the draft document entitled “Measuring the Quality of Judicial Services - CEPEJ Guidelines for quality measurement” (Document CEPEJ-GT-QUAL(2012)2Rev3), prepared by the CEPEJ working group on quality of justice (CEPEJ-GT-QUAL).

30.          Part of this document concerned the performance of courts and called for an exchange of views in the SATURN group before the final adoption of the document by the CEPEJ in December, in so far as the group had not been able to attend the joint working session of the CEPEJ-GT-QUAL and the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL.

31.          In the table on “Justice performance”, only two indicators were taken into consideration, but not “disposal time” and “turnover ratio”. The group felt that these two indicators did not suffice and that the table should be altered. The Chair would contact the Chair of the CEPEJ-GT-QUAL to pass on the comments from the CEPEJ-GT-SATURN before the document was submitted to the CEPEJ for adoption.

9. Promotion and dissemination of SATURN judicial time management tools

a.           Coaching programme in Italy

32.          A CEPEJ-SATURN delegation had visited the Court of Syracuse (Italy) in May 2013. The visit had involved carrying out a study on the procedural delays in the pending cases and on the implementation of the SATURN tools.

33.          The recently built court consisted of 31 judges (instead of 36 as foreseen), each assisted by approximately 3 persons often without professional qualification. The experts had concentrated on civil cases, on the basis of the 2012 judicial statistics provided by the court, which in particular had allowed problems to be noted regarding the backlog of cases and the very protracted times for some cases (over 10 years). The experts had presented to the court the fifteen guidelines for reducing procedural delays, according to the methodological guide for their implementation. One was to propose to the head of the court to prepare annually a programme of very precise objectives for reducing procedural delays. Another guideline concerned the grounding of decisions which was often too lengthy having regard to the value in dispute. The court had also been advised to enter into partnerships with the universities in order to offer the best law students the possibility of completing their course by coming to assist the judge and the staff of courts. To make the judges’ work easier, these students could thus produce lists of the important points for each case to be determined by the judges.

34.          A detailed report had been drawn up by the experts but existed in Italian only (Document CEPEJ-SATURN(2013)12). It would be translated upon its validation by the court.

35.          It was proposed to give this activity follow-up in order to analyse the progress made as well as to work more intensively on the criminal sphere.

b.           Coaching programme for Malta

36.          Mr Francesco DEPASQUALE (Malta) proposed organising a coaching programme for the courts of Malta, on the pattern of the one organised in Sicily, there being similar problems of procedural delays. The SATURN Group and the Secretariat responded favourably to this request and the Chair proposed to deliver forthwith to the Maltese judicial authorities a document which he had prepared, setting out the preparations for a meeting of this kind, its conduct and the follow-up envisaged.

c.           Co-operation with Morocco

37.          See Appendix III to this document for a synopsis of the discussions.

d.           Co-operation with Turkey

38.          See Appendix IV to this document for a synopsis of the discussions.

APPENDIX I

AGENDA

1.            Opening of the meeting

Ouverture de la réunion

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

            Information du Président, des 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

Rapporteur : Marco FABRI (IRSIG-CNR, Italy/Italie)

2. Updating of the Study on Council of Europe Member States on Appeal and Supreme Courts' Lengths of Proceedings

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

Rapporteur : Marco FABRI (IRSIG-CNR, Italy/Italie)

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

Questionnaire pour la collecte de données auprès des tribunaux référents de la CEPEJ

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

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

           

2. Continuation of the data collection

Continuation de la collecte des données

5.            Finalisation of the amended SATURN Guidelines

Finalisation des lignes directrices SATURN modifiées

           

6.            Definition of targets for judicial timeframes

Définition d’objectifs en matière de délais judiciaires

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

e.           Coaching programme in Italy

Programme d’appui en Italie

f.    Co-operation with Morocco (Friday afternoon 27 September (14.00 – 17.00) should be devoted to this specific item, with the Moroccan delegation – Agenda in appendix)

Coopération avec le Maroc (L’après-midi du vendredi 27 septembre (14h00 – 17h00) devrait être consacrée à ce point spécifique, en présence de la délégation marocaine – Ordre du jour en annexe)

g.   Co-operation with Turkey (a presentation of the work underway in the framework of the co-operation between CEPEJ and Turkey is foreseen on Friday morning)

            Coopération avec la Turquie (une présentation sur les travaux en cours dans le cadre de la coopération entre la CEPEJ et la Turquie est prévue vendredi matin)

h.           Other coaching programmes

Autres programmes d'appui

APPENDIX II

LIST OF 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

TURKEY/TURQUIE

Engin DURNAGÖL, Deputy Secretary General of the High Council of Judges of Prosecutors, HcoJPs

Cengiz TANRIKULU, Deputy Director General, DG of EU Affairs, Ministry of Justice

İbrahim DEMIRTAŞ, Head of Department, Department of  Strategic Development, Ministry of Justice

Assoc. Dr. MustafaTAŞKIN, Head of Department, DG of Legal Affairs , Ministry of Justice

Mehmet DEMIROĞLU, UYAP Expert, Department of IT, Ministry of Justice

Prof. Dr. MuhammetÖZEKES, Dean of the Law Faculty, Gediz University and Faculty Member of the Law Faculty, Bilkent University,

Assistant Prof Dr. EmelHANAĞASI, Faculty, Member of the Law Faculty, Ankara University

***

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

MOROCCO/MAROC

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

Abdallah BOUJDA, Président, Tribunal de Première Instance de Casablanca

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

Abdelaziz ISSERSSIF, Président, Tribunal de Première Instance de Sidi Kacem

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

***

Joao ARSENIO de OLIVEIRA, Expert de la CEPEJ pour la coopération avec le Maroc, Chef de Département à la Direction-Générale de la Politique de Justice, Ministère de la Justice du Portugal, Membre de la CEPEJ au titre du Portugal et membre du groupe de travail qualité de la CEPEJ

Hélène JORRY, Expert de la CEPEJ pour la coopération avec le Maroc, Doctorante, Université de Versailles-Saint-Quentin -en-Yvelines, Membre du centre de recherche «Versailles Institutions Publiques»

Jacques-André GUY, anc. Juge cantonal Membre de la Direction de l'Académie suisse de la magistrature

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

Jean-Pierre GEILLER, Administration and Finances

Annette SATTEL, Administration and Networks

Emily WALKER, Assistant/Assistante

Ioana VOELKEL, Assistant/Assistante

INTERPRETERS / INTERPRETES

Michael HILL

Chloé CHENETIER

Nicolas GUITTONNEAU

Ebru DIRIKER

Canan TOLLU

APPENDIX III

Meeting with the Moroccan delegation

Friday 27 September 2013 (2 – 6 pm)

1. Evaluation of the judicial system of the Kingdom of Morocco based on 2012 data and taking account of the Judicial Reform Charter

Mr Jacques BUHLER said that the draft evaluation report on the operation of the Moroccan judicial system would be submitted to the authorities before the fourth visit by a CEPEJ delegation to Morocco, which would take place from 11 to 15 November 2013.  The report would include an analysis of the key data on the operation of the judicial system for 2012 and make it possible to identify any changes in the judicial system which had taken place since 2010.  In addition, the report would consider the extent to which the recommendations made by the CEPEJ in its previous evaluation report on the judicial system had been incorporated in the Charter for the Reform of the Judicial System published in July 2013.

Ms Najat RAHALI presented the main changes included in the Charter for the Reform of the Judicial System.  As far as the efficiency of justice was concerned, it was planned that court digitisation activities would begin in 2014, with completion scheduled for 2020.  The relevant activities would be carried out in co-operation with the bar associations, the courts and other key players in the field of justice.  The establishment of a national population database was also planned.

As far as the independence of the judicial system was concerned, the institutional laws on the High Council of Justice and the status of judges and prosecutors were being prepared and were due to be promulgated by the end of 2014.  The Public Prosecutor’s Office should be placed under the authority of the Principal State Prosecutor in the Supreme Court, who would be required, inter alia, to report to the Ministry of Justice on the implementation of the criminal law policies drawn up by the ministry.  The decisions of the High Council of Justice would have to be published from now on.

The Charter for the Reform of the Judicial System would be implemented gradually between 2014 and 2020.  Monitoring machinery would be put in place to keep track of the progress of the various measures planned.

2. Training of Judicial Service Institute (ISM) instructors

Mr Jacques-André GUY presented the programme for training Moroccan instructors in CEPEJ tools, in particular the content, the profile of the instructors, the methodology and the documentation proposed.  Two instructor training sessions were planned: the first would be held in Marrakech on 11 November and the second in Rabat on 13 November.  A DVD would be recorded during the session on 13 November, and 1 000 copies would then be distributed to the instructors and CEPEJ co-ordinators in Morocco, as well as the Ministry of Justice and the CEPEJ pilot courts.

The proposals were approved by the Moroccan delegation.

3. Casablanca Civil Court of First Instance: state of progress of the simplified service of documents project and launch of the satisfaction surveys project

Mr Abdullah BOUJIDA said that a round table had been held in Casablanca in July to inform the various stakeholders about the measures planned under the simplified service of documents project.  It had been attended by bailiffs, representatives of Casablanca Bar, members of the Court of First Instance and representatives of local authorities, prefectures and the press.  A description of the project had been distributed at the meeting.  The project had been launched officially on 16 September 2013.

Mr Jacques BUHLER and the Moroccan delegation agreed that a working session would have to be arranged with bailiffs, during the CEPEJ’s next visit to Casablanca Court of First Instance on 14 November 2013, to discuss the progress of the project on the basis of data gathered since September 2013.

It was also agreed that the satisfaction surveys project would be launched with a small-scale “trial” (15-20 persons) of the questionnaire developed by the CEPEJ team and the Moroccan delegation.  The trial would be carried out by the CEPEJ team in the premises of Casablanca Court of First Instance in co-operation with a team from the court; the questionnaires in French or Arabic would be issued to users and lawyers.  A meeting would also be held to conduct an initial review of the “trial”.

4. Sidi Kacem Court of First Instance: arrangement of round table on simplified service of documents; launch of the satisfaction surveys project

Further to Ms Najat RAHALI’s proposal that the difficulties involved in the serving of documents in rural areas and in implementing a simplified service of documents project similar to the one currently being carried out in Casablanca be analysed, it was agreed that a round table with the main stakeholders would initially be held at Sidi Kacem Court of First Instance on 15 November.  The Minister of Justice and Freedoms, Mr Mustapha RAMID, might open the meeting.

It was also agreed that a satisfaction survey would be conducted in the court on the basis of the methodology proposed by the CEPEJ and approved by the Moroccan authorities and taking account of the results of the “trial” to be conducted in Casablanca.  A meeting would be held at the court after the round table to discuss the results of the “trial” and the practical arrangements for implementing the survey with the President of the Court of First Instance and his team.

5. Agadir Administrative Court: 2014 objectives and launch of the satisfaction surveys project

Mr Abdelmati EL KEDDOURI said that measures had been taken at Agadir Administrative Court with a view to meeting the 2014 objectives for dealing with the backlog of old cases, in conformity with the CEPEJ’s recommendations.  These measures would be analysed closely during the CEPEJ’s next visit to Morocco in November 2013.

It was also agreed that a satisfaction survey would be conducted in the court on the basis of the methodology proposed by the CEPEJ and approved by the Moroccan authorities and taking account of the results of the “trial” to be conducted in Casablanca.

6. Satisfaction surveys project: other points

It was agreed that revised versions of the Handbook for Conducting Satisfaction Surveys and the questionnaires would be sent to the Moroccan partners before the CEPEJ’s visit to Morocco in November.  These new versions would take account of the comments made by the Moroccan delegation in a meeting with the CEPEJ team held in Strasbourg on 26 September 2013.

7. Organisation of the CEPEJ’s working visit from 11 to 15 November 2013

The programme of the CEPEJ’s working visit was agreed by the participants.

Documents de travail / Working documents

Notification simplifiée au sein du Tribunal de Première Instance civil de Casablanca

[Simplified service of documents in Casablanca Civil Court of First Instance]

CEPEJ – SATURN(2013)9

Rapport relatif à la gestion de la qualité au sein du Tribunal de Première Instance civil de Casablanca

[Report on quality management in Casablanca Civil Court of First Instance]

CEPEJ – SATURN(2013)8

Rapport relatif à la gestion de la qualité au sein du Tribunal Administratif d’Agadir

[Report on quality management in Agadir Administrative Court]

CEPEJ – SATURN(2013)11

Rapport relatif à la gestion du temps judiciaire et de la qualité au sein du Tribunal de Première Instance de Sidi Kacem

[Report on judicial time management and quality management in Sidi Kacem Court of First Instance]

CEPEJ – SATURN(2013)10

Collaboration avec l’Institut Supérieur de la Magistrature en vue de la mise en œuvre des outils de la CEPEJ au sein du Royaume du Maroc et Plan d’Actions

[Co-operation with the Judicial Service Institute with a view to implementing the CEPEJ tools in the Kingdom of Morocco and Action Plan]

CEPEJ – SATURN(2013)7

(Documents in French only)

APPENDIX IV

Co-operation with Turkey

(presentation of the work underway in the framework of the co-operation between CEPEJ and Turkey)

1. The Secretariat presented the main objectives and activities of the Project on “Strengthening the Court Management System (COMASTY)”, financed by the European Union, the Republic of Turkey and the Council of Europe, which is implemented by the Council of Europe. The project’s objective is to improve court efficiency in Turkey through the implementation of new court management practices in 26 Turkish pilot court houses. A specific project component aims to introduce and apply the SATURN Guidelines on judicial time management in three Turkish court houses: Amasya, Erzerum, and Ankara.

2. Mr Jon T. Johnsen presented the activities carried out so far in the framework of the SATURN component[2]. These activities laid the foundations for the implementation of SATURN guidelines in the three courthouses. In particular, awareness-raising of judges, prosecutors and court staff was carried out, and target times were set for each case category in criminal, civil and administrative proceedings. Specific implementation plans of 10-month duration (1 September 2013 – 30 June 2014) have been defined for each court house. These plans will help monitor if each case is completed within the set timeframe, help identify the reasons for any possible delays and take the necessary corrective actions in case such delays are observed.

Mr Johnsen also outlined the main challenges arising in the process of application of the Guidelines:

i)      The decentralisation of Turkish courts. One can come across several courts in the same court house, as each judge and his/her assigned staff represent a court. For instance, as mentioned earlier the SATURN component is targeting three court houses, but the number of courts and prosecution offices which benefits from this component is actually of thirteen courts and two prosecution offices. Moreover, each court may have different case categories and different approaches to the defined targets. To deal effectively with this feature, it was decided to adapt working methods and adopt a court-by-court and judge-by- judge approach. Accordingly, judges and prosecutors were gathered in four different working groups: civil courts, administrative courts, criminal courts and prosecutor offices respectively. Each group was given the task to set targets for each case category through the identification of a number of procedural stages per category and their corresponding duration (for instance: the drafting of a judgement in a divorce case should not take more than xx days).

ii)     Not all the fifteen SATURN Guidelines are being implemented in the framework of the Project; yet, the Project’s goals and activities are fully in line with the intended objective of the SATURN Guidelines to reduce length of proceedings.  

iii)    With regard to IT support, the experts experienced some difficulties in receiving the statistics on some important data such as clearance rate, disposition time and turnover ratio. Furthermore a warning and a reporting system in case of delays were also considered as areas to be developed.

iv)    The SATURN component is being applied to prosecution offices, as it is believed that that the SATURN Guidelines shall also be applicable to prosecutors and that the investigation period is also subject to reasonable time limit requirements. The Turkish experience of implementation of SATURN Guidelines within prosecution offices should nurture the reflections of the CEPEJ SATURN Group on judicial time management, with a view to the elaboration of a specific set of Guidelines addressed to Prosecutors.

v)     The experts observed a limited knowledge by Turkish legal professionals of the reasonable time requirements set in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

3. The Turkish delegation described the different steps which have been taken to ensure the implementation of the SATURN Guidelines in the three pilot court houses (see above, paragraph 2). They presented number of adjustments made to the  National Judiciary Network Project  system (UYAP) to meet the Project’s needs. Moreover, they mentioned that wide efforts have been made to raise awareness about the Project among the parties (whom receive, in addition to notifications, one letter about the Project), the bar associations, and the public at large (though Internet). 

4.     The Turkish delegation expressed their wish to extend the use of SATURN tools to other Turkish courts with the support of the SATURN Centre.

5.     As regards the implementation of the SATURN guidelines to the prosecutors, the delegation recommended to wait until the end of the test period of the current project and to evaluate its results before taking a decision.