Strasbourg, 13 April 2015

CEPEJ-SATURN(2015)6

european Commission for the efficiency of justice

(CEPEJ)

Steering Group of the SATURN Centre for judicial time management

(CEPEJ-SATURN)

17th meeting  

Strasbourg, 30 and 31 March 2015

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 17th meeting in Strasbourg on 30 and 31 March 2015, with Jacques BÜHLER (Switzerland) in the chair.

2.             The agenda appears in Appendix I and the list of participants in Appendix II to this report.

3.             The afternoon of 31 March would be given over to a meeting on CEPEJ co-operation in Albania.

II.            Information from the Chair, Group members and the Secretariat

4.             The Chair welcomed the Albanian delegation, which consisted mainly of the CEPEJ pilot courts under the co-operation programme with Albania and which had come to Strasbourg to acquaint itself with the work of the SATURN Group.

III.           Updating of the SATURN Guidelines for judicial time management – comments and examples

5.             The CEPEJ-SATURN examined the updated version of the comments and examples concerning the SATURN Guidelines for judicial time management (CEPEJ-SATURN(2015)2).

6.             In this document, under each of the 15 Guidelines identified as priorities by the SATURN Group, the CEPEJ pilot courts had been invited to provide examples of action taken in their own courts, as a possible source of inspiration for other courts.

7.             The Working Group took note of the additions made by the representatives of the pilot courts, at their previous meeting or afterwards by email, and which appeared in the document in bold. It instructed the Secretariat to update the document by including the comments made by Georgia, to remove the bold type so as not to give the impression that some comments were more important than others, and to check the page layout, taking care to start a new page for each guideline, making the document easier to read.

8.             The Group was anxious that the document should be an open-ended one, which courts could amend or add to at any time. It instructed the Secretariat to make sure that the version on the CEPEJ website was the latest one, and invited the courts to contact the CEPEJ Secretariat regarding any changes they might wish to make.

IV.          Definition of targets for judicial timeframes

9.             Marco FABRI (Italy), expert, presented the document entitled “Towards European Timeframes for Judicial Proceedings: Implementation Guide” (document CEPEJ-SATURN(2015)1), which he had prepared on the basis of the document “Towards European Timeframes for Judicial Proceedings: an Initial Proposal, Draft of 15 April 2014” (document CEPEJ-SATURN(2014)3rev) which the Group had previously asked him to prepare. The Working Group examined the document, together with the comments and the structure that had been added by the Chair.

Title

10.          The Group finally opted for the term “Délais” in French and “Timeframes” in English and decided to drop the terms standards, targets, etc.

Introduction

11.          The Chair of the CEPEJ-SATURN went over the procedure for counting the number of cases in any given court:

12.          Members of the Working Group held an exchange of views on the definition of “backlog” (percentage of cases not disposed within the timeframe set) during which it was noted that there were two implicit assumptions here, firstly that every court had set timeframes at the start of the proceedings and secondly, that those courts which had not done so had no backlog. The fact was, however, that where timeframes were set not by the court but by another body, such as the European Court of Human Rights, domestic law or the High Council of Justice, and where those timeframes were not respected, it might nevertheless be appropriate to conclude that there was in fact a backlog.

13.          The difficulty arose from the fact that certain pending cases were not considered backlog. Such cases were included in the backlog from a certain point in time, depending on the type of case, the court and how it managed its cases, or depending on the judicial system concerned.

14.          A number of experts were in favour of keeping the term “backlog”, the term commonly used in the CEPEJ’s work, but felt it should be redefined so as to remove any negative connotations. That would effectively mean distinguishing between quantity and quality, i.e. between the build-up of unexamined cases that were “still to be dealt with” and cases which had not exceeded the timeframe set in the proceedings.

15.          It was therefore agreed to include in the introduction to the document a clear definition of “caseload” and “backlog”. The Chair asked Mr FABRI to prepare new definitions for inclusion in the amended draft, whilst seeking to simplify and streamline the definitions from among the large number of definitions contained in the various CEPEJ documents. It was, for example, decided to do away with the following indicators listed in the Eugmont guidelines: “total backlog” and “backlog resolution”, this last concept being oddly similar to “disposition term”.

16.          During this discussion, it was suggested that a compendium of definitions relating to the CEPEJ’s activities be prepared in the future. The Vice-Chair of the CEPEJ, Irakli ADEISHVILI, was instructed to pass on this request to the Bureau.

Examples and tables to be included

17.          The CEPEJ-SATURN decided to keep to Mr FABRI’s suggestions regarding timeframes, which were considered more feasible, but to also include summary tables.

18.          The CEPEJ-SATURN approved the document and instructed the Secretariat to translate it into French and then to forward it to the pilot courts for consideration, implementation and some initial feedback for the next meeting of the pilot courts, during which a special workshop would be held on this subject.

V.            Updating of the Study on Council of Europe Member States on Appeal and Supreme Courts’ Lengths of Proceedings by Marco VELICOGNA, IRSIG-CNR

19.          The Working Group discussed the update of the “Study on Council of Europe Member States on Appeal and Supreme Courts’ Lengths of Proceedings, Edition 2015, 2006-2012 data”, prepared (for the second time) by Marco Velicogna (Document CEPEJ-SATURN(2015)3). The Group thanked Mr Velicogna for his excellent work.

20.          It was suggested that an introductory sentence be added to make it clear that the data referred to in this document were raw data, with no account being taken of available human resources. A reference would also be made to an appendix containing a table showing the breakdown of judges between the various courts, based on the 2012 data contained in the CEPEJ report.

21.          With regard to NA or NAP data, or the question of what to do in cases where data were not available for the 3 instances, the Group agreed to adopt the same methodology as for the CEPEJ report and instructed the Secretariat to ask Mr VELICOGNA to amend the tables accordingly.

22.          The CEPEJ-SATURN provisionally approved the update, instructed the expert to make the above-mentioned amendments and also certain changes to methodology, data and various appendices and asked the CEPEJ to put this document on the agenda of its next plenary meeting. After the plenary meeting, CEPEJ members should be given time to amend various data contained in the report, where necessary.


VI.           Recent ECtHR case law on the reasonable time criterion and statistics of the Court

23.          The Working Group examined the table providing an update of ECtHR case law on the reasonable time criterion, as set out in document CEPEJ-SATURN(2015)5. It considered that the case law was consistent with previous years and that there was as yet no need to amend the Régis/Calvez report.

24.          The Working Group also examined the statistics regarding violations of the Convention by Article and by State, from 1959 to 2014 and in 2014 (Document CEPEJ-SATURN(2015)4). It noted that the statistics were stable. A further review would be conducted at the 1st meeting of the CEPEJ-SATURN in 2016, at which participants would also consider a table of non-violations regarding length of proceedings and secondly the number of cases relative to population, so as to make data more comparable.

VII.         Continuous improvement of data collection

25.          The CEPEJ-SATURN examined the list of member states which delivered good quality CEPEJ data (Document CEPEJ-SATURN(2014)4). It referred to the types of cases contained in the CEPEJ evaluation report, 2014 edition.

26.          The purpose of this document was not to point the finger at states which had not managed to deliver all the data requested, but rather to highlight the difficulties encountered by states in providing certain data, in an attempt to understand the reasons for these shortcomings. The exercise also aimed at improving the general process of data collection by the CEPEJ. For example, it was noted that, when it came to data, states seemed to have difficulty distinguishing between serious criminal cases and other criminal cases.

27.          The Group decided to discuss this matter again when the CEPEJ had finished collecting the 2014 data.

VIII.        Implementation of the SATURN tools

28.          The CEPEJ-SATURN held an exchange of views on whether to amend the document entitled “Implementing the SATURN time management tools in courts – A guide” (document CEPEJ-SATURN(2011)9). The discussion drew on the experiences of various Group members and experts in using this document when implementing the CEPEJ’s co-operation programmes in various member states. Innovative and extremely useful when first published, the document could now stand to be improved in the light of practical experience.

29.          The document in question contained 15 guidelines selected from among the guidelines for judicial time management adopted by the CEPEJ in 2008 and then amended in 2014 to include prosecutors (document CEPEJ(2014)16). This selection of guidelines needed revising in order to avoid repetition or, on the contrary, develop the guidelines further. Specific examples could also be added.

30.          The document could be restructured around three main areas: (i) general objectives for courts (set by law, by the High Council of Justice or by the courts themselves); (ii) oversight, monitoring and crisis management in case of emergency; (iii) relations between the courts and the parties.

31.          It was suggested that specific examples be prepared for each guideline and a diagnostic tool be developed containing precise indicators, to be used before applying the guidelines and which would help to identify existing needs, depending on the courts, e.g.:

·         the court’s jurisdiction,

·         number and types of judges,  

·         tasks performed by the judges,

·         number of cases,  

·         the judges’ average caseload,  

·         clearance rate,

·         the court’s budget,

·         actions taken to reduce timeframes.

32.          The CEPEJ-SATURN agreed to return to this item at the next meeting, at which it would examine a draft to be prepared in advance by the Chair in the light of the present discussions. In the meantime, CEPEJ-SATURN members were invited to make suggestions about these indicators, which would need to be requested beforehand.

IX.          Coaching programme

France

33.          France had just requested the CEPEJ’s help in support of its current efforts to provide users of the justice system with provisional timeframes for dealing with cases. To this end, a coaching programme would be organised at Montpellier tribunal de grande instance.

Greece

34.          Further to the request made by the CEPEJ member in respect of Greece, a coaching programme on judicial timeframes would take place at Thessalonica administrative court on 19 June 2015.

Georgia

35.          A special training session on statistical data collection was going to be held in Georgia.

X.            Training for new CEPEJ experts

36.          Noting that there were not enough experts available to implement the growing number of co-operation activities run by the CEPEJ, the latter had asked its members to provide it with a list of people who could be trained in the CEPEJ tools and then participate, alongside a CEPEJ member, in the various activities of the CEPEJ. An initial training session for new CEPEJ experts had been held in Paris on 1 February 2015 for about about 30 participants and there were plans to hold another session in September 2015.

XI.          Co-operation programmes

Albania

37.          In the six initial courts (High Court, Tirana District Court, Tirana First Instance Serious Crimes Court, Vlora Court of Appeal, First Instance Administrative Court of Tirana and Elbasan District Court), the first stage of testing the SATURN tools and guidelines had been completed. The first series of Court Coaching meetings had taken place the previous year and several reports on the degree of implementation of the SATURN Guidelines and the Time Management Checklist were being drafted. The project was now being followed up with activities focusing on a number of issues identified during the coaching process. For example, a round table had been held with the Albanian judicial authorities on the issue of court notification procedures and documents.  

 

Alongside these six courts, work was also being carried out in all the other courts in Albania. There had already been an initial round of meetings with these new courts to raise awareness about the Court Coaching programme and the CEPEJ guidelines and tools. Also, the experts had already begun assessing the level of implementation of the SATURN guidelines in a number of these new courts.

The preparations for conducting court user satisfaction surveys in 10 Albanian courts (the 6 initial pilot courts + 4 other courts) were now complete: a questionnaire had been tested beforehand in the 6 initial courts and revised on the basis of the results of these tests and would be disseminated in all 10 courts.  

Croatia

38.          The team of experts from the CEPEJ was finalising an action plan for introducing SATURN tools and methods in order to reduce the length of proceedings in Karlovac municipal court. Two meetings had already been held since the beginning of the year and the next step, for the CEPEJ experts, would be to assess the implementation of these tools in Karlovac court. In the light of this experience, a report containing recommendations for other municipal courts in Croatia would be prepared.

At the same time, satisfaction questionnaires would be drawn up starting in May and then circulated in  Varaždin municipal court which was a member of the CEPEJ network of pilot courts.   

Morocco

39.          Following the activities carried out in the three pilot courts (Casablanca tribunal de grande instance, Administrative Court of Agadir and Sidi Kacem court) concerning the service of court documents and the work of bailiffs, timeframes and satisfaction surveys, the next step would be to roll out the CEPEJ tools nationwide. There would be an awareness-raising session in April for all the court presidents, as well as training sessions for new pilot courts. It was also planned to hold a conference on the enforcement of decisions relating to administrative authorities, which would be attended by representatives of all the various bodies involved in enforcement proceedings.

Tunisia

40.          The CEPEJ’s activities in the pilot courts were continuing, and indeed expanding as several courts had recently approached the CEPEJ about joining the network of pilot courts. Training courses had been held for court staff. Special efforts were being made to sensitise Tunisian lawyers to the benefits of working with the courts in order to help speed up and improve the quality of proceedings. A conference would be held in Tunisia in early June, during which the pilot courts would report to other Tunisian courts on their work with the CEPEJ.

Malta

41.          Further to the follow-up activity organised in 2014, the Chair of the CEPEJ-SATURN was to send a report to the Maltese authorities.  

XII.         Other business – Follow-up

CEPEJ website: SATURN page

42.          The Working Group made a few suggestions for improving the website and instructed the Secretariat to implement them:

-       add the Guide on implementing the SATURN guidelines for judicial time management under “Guidelines” as it was still associated with the latter;

-       highlight the indicators by inserting an additional heading “Indicators”, referring to the Appendix to the guidelines -  European Uniform Guidelines for Monitoring of Judicial Timeframes (Eugmont);

-       give more prominence to the title SATURN on the dedicated page.

Request to update Recommendation (86) 12 concerning measures to prevent and reduce the excessive workload in the courts

43.          The CEPEJ-SATURN, in co-operation with the European Union of Rechtspfleger (EUR), had prepared an opinion which had been approved by the CEPEJ in December 2014 and which was aimed at proposing that the European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ) update Recommendation Rec(86)12 concerning measures to prevent and reduce the excessive workload in the courts (Document CEPEJ(2014)19). This Opinion had been examined by the CDCJ Bureau at its 97th meeting (February 2015), at which it had been agreed to place this update on the agenda of the next plenary meeting of the CDCJ (October 2015).

44.          The President of the European Union of Rechtspfleger (EUR) welcomed this development and hoped that the CDCJ would grant this request, given the relevance of this Recommendation to the day-to-day work carried out by court bailiffs.

XIII.        Information from the observers

45.          The President of the European Union of Rechtspfleger (EUR) pointed out that his Union was still looking for up-to-date information on the functions and status of bailiffs in member states.

 


APPENDIX I

AGENDA

  1. Opening of the meeting

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

  3. Updating of SATURN Guidelines for judicial time management - Comments and implementation examples

4.    Definition of targets for judicial timeframes

a) Implementation Guide

b) Follow up - Tests within selected pilot courts

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

6.    Recent ECtHR case law to the reasonable time criterion and statistics of the ECtHR

7.    Continuous improvement of data collection

8.    Implementation of the SATURN tools

Discussion about the experience made with the guide and the 15 selected Guidelines

9.    Coaching programme / Programme de formation

 a)   France

 b)   Greece

 c)   Georgia

10.  Co-operation programmes / Programmes de coopération

 a)   Albania

 b)   Croatia

 c)   Morocco

11.  Other points - Follow up

a.     Internet site of CEPEJ: SATURN page

b.     Rec (86)12 concerning measures to prevent and reduce the excessive workload in the courts -  Update request – Information

12.  Observation of the observers

31 March 2015 (afternoon):

Meeting concerning the cooperation project with Albania

-


APPENDIX II

Provisional List of Participants

Irakli ADEISHVILI, Chairman, Chamber of Civil Cases, Tbilisi City Court, 6, David Aghmashenebeli Kheivani 12-th, TBILISI 0131, GEORGIA, Tel: +995 32 54 10 63 (ext. 155), Fax: +995 32 54 10 63, e-mail: [email protected](Vice-President of the CEPEJ / Vice-Président de la CEPEJ)

Ivana BORZOVÁ, Head, Department of Civil Supervision, Ministry of Justice, Vysehradská 16, 128 10 PRAGUE 2, CZECH REPUBLIC, Tel: +420 221 997 416, Fax: +420 221 997 557, e-mail: [email protected]

Jacques BÜHLER, Secrétaire Général suppléant, Tribunal fédéral suisse, Avenue du Tribunal fédéral 29, CH-1000 LAUSANNE 14, SUISSE, Tél : +41 21 318 91 04, Fax : +41 21 323 37 00, e-mail : [email protected] (President the Group / Président du Groupe)

Francesco DEPASQUALE, Ministry representative, Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs, 184 St Lucia Street, VALLETTA 1189, MALTA, Tél: +356 20 99 64 45, e-mail: [email protected]

Giacomo OBERTO, Magistrat, Tribunal de Grande Instance, via San Francesco d'Assisi 14, I - 10122 TURIN, ITALIE, Tél.:+39 01153 28 56, e-mail: [email protected]

Ivan CRNČEC, Assistant Minister of Justice, Ulica grada Vukovara 49, 10 000 Zagreb, CROATIA, e-mail :  [email protected], Apologised/Excusé

Georg STAWA, Head of Department Pr 8, Projects, Strategy and Innovation, Federal Ministry of Justice, Museumstrasse 7, 1016 VIENNA, AUSTRIA, Tel: +43 1 52 152  22 80 / +43 676 89 89 122 80, e-mail: [email protected] (President of the CEPEJ / Président de la CEPEJ)

***

Invited States / Pays invités

ALBANIA /ALBANIE

Xhezair ZAGANJORI, President of High Court, Rruga “Deshmoret e 4 Shkurtit”, TIRANA,
Tel: +355
04 22 28 327, e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

Marsida XHAFERLLARI, Chief Inspector, High Council of Justice, Bulevardi "Zogu I", TIRANA,
Tel: + 355 69 20 89 431, e-mail: [email protected]

Alma LIÇAJ, Chairwoman of Vlora Court of Appeal, Lagjia Isa Boletini, VLORE, Tel: +355 69 20 87 505, e-mail: [email protected] 

Sandër SIMONI, Chairman of Tirana First Instance Court of Serious Crimes, Rr ”Jordan Misja”, TIRANA,

Tel: +355 69 20 60 180, e-mail: [email protected]

Fatri ISLAMAJ, Chairman of Tirana District Court, Blvd. Gjergj Fishta, TIRANA, Tel: +355 67 20 37 080,
e-mail: [email protected]

Arben VRIONI, Chaiman of Elbasan District Court, Lgj. Kongresi I Elbasanit, Pall, 26, ELBASAN,
Tel: +355 69 20 96 766, e-mail: [email protected]

Eriol ROSHI, Chairman of First Administrative Court of Tirana, Rr”Llambi Bonata” pall.11, Njesia Bashkiake Nr.6, TIRANA, Tel: +355 69 40 99 504, e-mail: [email protected]

Aida BUSHATI, National Long-Term Consultant, EU / CoE “Support to Efficiency of Justice – SEJ” project, Rruga “Dora D’Istria”, Pall Drini Shpk, Ap. 16, TIRANA, Tel: +355 67 60 60 501, e-mail: [email protected]

Elira KOKONA, National Long-Term Consultant, EU / CoE “Support to Efficiency of Justice – SEJ” project, Rruga Kavajes, Nr.1, TIRANA, Tel: +355 69 40 50 134, e-mail: [email protected]

Eriona HAXHIA, National Long-Term Consultant, EU / CoE “Support to Efficiency of Justice – SEJ” project, Sheshi Skenderbej, Pallati i Kultures, Kati i 2, Nr 9, TIRANA, Tel: +355 69 87 02 415,
e-mail: [email protected]

Tea JALIASHVILIi, Project manager,

Alba KOKALARI, Linguistic assistant,

JORDAN / JORDANIE

***

Scientific Experts / Experts scientifiques

Marco FABRI, Director, Research Institute on Judicial Systems, National Research Council (IRSIG-CNR), Via Zamboni 26, 40126 BOLOGNA, ITALY, Tel: +39 051 237 044, Fax: +39 (0)51 260 250, e-mail: [email protected]

Jon T. JOHNSEN, Professor in Law, Faculty of law, University of Oslo, NORWAY,  Postboks 6706, St. Olavs plass, N-0130 OSLO, Norway, Tel: +47 41 47 18 47, Fax: +47 22 85 94 20, e-mail: [email protected]

***

Observers / Observateurs

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

Jean-Jacques KUSTER, Greffier en Chef, Tribunal d’Instance, 5 rue du Fossé des Treize, BP 444, 67008 STRASBOURG CEDEX, FRANCE, Tél: + 33 (0)3 88 15 59 03, Fax: +33 (0)3 88 75 91 29, e-mail: [email protected]

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

***

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]

Muriel DECOT, Co-Secretary of the CEPEJ / Co-secrétaire de la CEPEJ, Tél: +33 (0)3 90 21 44 55, e-mail: [email protected]

Yannick MENECEUR, Special Advisor to the Secretariat of the CEPEJ / Conseiller spécial auprès du Secrétariat de la CEPEJ, Tél : +33 (0)3 90 21 53 59, e-mail : [email protected]

Muriel ISELI,  Project Officer / Coordinatrice de programmes, Justice and Legal Co-operation Department / Service de la coopération judiciaire et juridique, Tél : +33 (0)3 88 41 33 63, e-mail : [email protected]

Sophio GELASHVILI, Project Officer / Coordinatrice de projets, Justice and Legal Co-operation Department / Service de la coopération judiciaire et juridique, Tel: +33 (0)3 88 41 31 80, e-mail:  [email protected]

Jean-Pierre GEILLER, Documentation, Tél : +33(0) 3 88 41 22 27, e-mail : [email protected]

Annette SATTEL, Communication, Tél: +33 (0)3 88 41 39 04, e-mail: [email protected]

Elisabeth HEURTEBISE, Assistant/Assistante, Secretariat of the CEPEJ, Tél: +33 (0)3 88 41 35 54, e-mail: [email protected]

TRAINEES / STAGAIRES

Intissar ESRHYER

INTERPRETERS / INTERPRETES

Lucie DE BURLET

Luke TILDEN

Chloé CHENETIER

Adelina ALBRAHIMI

Teuta BARBULLUSHI