CEPEJ(2008)1

European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ)

2007 Activity Report

adopted by the CEPEJ at its 11^th plenary meeting (2 and 3 July 2008)

and approved by the Ministers’ Deputies at their 1037th  meeting (8 October 2008)

 

For further information: www.coe.int/CEPEJ

1.     This report outlines the work undertaken by the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ)[1] in 2007, in accordance with its Programme of Activities[2]. It was drafted by the Bureau, adopted by the CEPEJ at its 11^th plenary meeting (2-3 July 2008) and submitted to the Committee of Ministers for approval, under Articles 7-6 and 7-7 of the CEPEJ Statute.

1. THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE (CEPEJ) IN 2007

1.1 Membership of the CEPEJ

2.     The CEPEJ is made up of experts from the 47 member states of the Council of Europe.  Only 3 states were not represented on the CEPEJ during the year.  Among those states enjoying observer status with the Council of Europe, the Holy See, Japan and Mexico contributed to the CEPEJ’s work.

3.     Mr Fausto DE SANTIS (Italy) was president of the CEPEJ.  Mr John STACEY (United Kingdom), Vice-President, Ms Elsa GARCIA MALTRAS de BLAS (Spain) and Mr Margus SARAPUU (Estonia) were members of the Bureau.

4.     The European Court of Human Rights, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE), the Consultative Council of European Prosecutors (CCPE), the European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ) and the Steering Committee on Human Rights (CDDH) are also represented at plenary meetings.

5.     The European Union is regularly invited to be represented at the CEPEJ meetings, through the Council of the European Union and the European Commission.  The World Bank also takes part in the work of the CEPEJ.

6.     The European Association of Judges, MEDEL (Magistrats Européens pour la Démocratie et les Libertés), the European Federation of Administrative Judges, the Council of the Bars of the European Community (CBEC), the European Union of Rechtspfleger (EUR), the International Union of Judicial Officers (UIHJ), the European Judicial Training Network (EJTN), the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ) and the American Bar Association – Rule of Law Initiative have observer status.

1.2 Meetings of the CEPEJ

7.     The CEPEJ held its 9^th plenary meeting on 13 and 14 June and its 10^th plenary meeting on 5 and 6 December in Strasbourg.

8.     The Bureau of the CEPEJ met in Strasbourg on 19 January and 22 October.

9.     The Working Group for the Evaluation of Judicial Systems (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL) met in Strasbourg on 29-31 January and on 8 and 9 November, with Mr Jean-Paul JEAN (France) in the chair.  The steering group (Groupe de Pilotage) of the SATURN Centre for Judicial Time Management met in Strasbourg on 20 and 21 March and on 18 and 19 October, with Mr Jacques BÜHLER (Switzerland) in the chair. The Working Group on the Quality of Justice (CEPEJ-GT-QUAL) met in Strasbourg on 22 and 23 February and on 20 and 21 September, with Mr Daimar LIIV (Estonia) in the chair.  The Working Group on Mediation met in Strasbourg on 3 and 4 April and on 5 and 6 November and in Vilnius (Lithuania) on 25 May with Mr Rimantas SIMAITIS (Lithuania) in the chair.

10.  The second plenary meeting of the CEPEJ’s network of pilot courts was held in Strasbourg on 19 March.

2.   ACTIVITIES AND ACHIEVEMENTS IN 2007

11.  The CEPEJ’s work programme ties in with Chapter II, “Rule of Law” and Line of Action II.1, “Functioning and efficiency of justice” of the Council of Europe’s programme of activities, under the project, “Evaluating and improving the efficiency of justice”. The CEPEJ’s task is central to the Council of Europe’s activities, in that it is expected to promote “common fundamental values: human rights, rule of law and democracy” by “strengthening democracy, good governance and the rule of law in member states”[3].

12.  The CEPEJ has been entrusted by the Committee of Ministers with the task of proposing practical solutions, suitable for use by Council of Europe member states, for:

§  promoting the effective implementation of existing Council of Europe instruments relating to the organisation of justice;

§  ensuring that public policies concerning the courts take account of the needs of users of the justice system and, in particular, the judiciary and law officers;

§  helping to reduce congestion in the European Court of Human Rights by offering states effective solutions prior to application to the Court and preventing violations of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

13.  In the Action Plan adopted at their 3rd Summit (Warsaw, 16-17 May 2005), the Heads of State and Government of Council of Europe member states decided to develop the evaluation and assistance functions of the CEPEJ in order to help member states deliver justice fairly and rapidly and to develop alternative dispute resolution methods.

14.  A medium-term activity programme was adopted by the CEPEJ in 2005 to meet these requirements[4].  In order to fulfil the tasks assigned to it, in 2007 the CEPEJ focused on:

§  introducing a new round of evaluations of the judicial systems of member states,

§  setting up the SATURN Centre for Judicial Time Management,

§  promoting the quality of justice,

§  finalising guidelines for the effective implementation of the Council of Europe’s instruments in the field of mediation,

§  engaging in debate with the European legal community and providing information for users of the justice system.

2.1 Tools for analysing the functioning of judicial systems and ensuring that public policies relating to the courts are geared to greater efficiency

2.1.1 Evaluating the functioning of European judicial systems

Follow up to the 2006 Report in member states

15.  The CEPEJ noted with satisfaction that its report “European judicial systems - 2006 edition” was regularly used as a source of information and reflection in connection with justice policies in  member states.  The report has been commented on in other forums, in particular a number of formal opening sessions of courts.

16.  Four studies, carried out by multinational research teams, were approved by the CEPEJ.  They undertook an in-depth analysis of the information set out in the report on the following themes: access to justice, evaluation and monitoring of justice systems, use of information technology in the courts and execution of judicial decisions.  They will be published in the “CEPEJ Studies” series.  The study on the execution of decisions by the national courts was closely examined by the Committee of Ministers in connection with its procedure for monitoring the honouring of member states’ commitments.  A fifth study, on the training of judges and public prosecutors, was forwarded to the Lisbon network.

Implementation of the 2006 – 2008 evaluation cycle

17.  In order to continue its evaluation of European judicial systems, the CEPEJ adapted the evaluation scheme, in the light of the experience of the previous evaluation exercise and the comments received from the experts and national correspondents.  The CEPEJ sought to change the scheme as little as possible in order to have consistent data from one round to the next and enable meaningful comparisons to be made.  The new scheme was approved by the Committee of Ministers at the 1005^th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (26 September).

18.  The Secretariat developed an IT tool to enable national correspondents to fill out the evaluation scheme electronically, in order to facilitate the gathering and processing of judicial data.

19.  The draft report, prepared by the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL, is to be submitted at the CEPEJ’s 11^th plenary meeting for adoption.

Implementation of a pilot peer review co-operation process

20.  On a proposal from the French delegation, the CEPEJ set up a pilot peer review co-operation process on judicial statistics.  By means of evaluation visits by CEPEJ experts in different member states[5], this process is designed to assist states in their efforts to enhance the quality of their judicial statistics, improve their statistical system and ensure that national statistics are consistent with the standards set out in the CEPEJ’s evaluation scheme.  It will make it possible to exchange experiences between national judicial statistics systems, share best practices, identify common indicators and transfer knowledge.  It also seeks to improve and help ensure the transparency and reliability of the CEPEJ’s evaluation process.

21.  The results of this pilot process will be assessed in 2008 with a view to extending it to all member states.

List of key data

22.  The CEPEJ adopted a set of key data which can be updated between two evaluation exercises, thereby enabling reporting, by those states that so wished, of new developments, which are sometimes rapid (particularly in the transition countries), and of policy choices made by certain states in order to improve their judicial systems.  This list of key data was approved by the Committee of Ministers at the 1005^th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (26 September).

Co-operation with the European Union

23.  At their 1005^th meeting, the Ministers’ Deputies “in line with the Memorandum of Understanding between the Council of Europe and the European Union signed on 17 May 2007, reiterated the availability of the Council of Europe to co-operate with the relevant bodies of the European Union so that the process of the CEPEJ for evaluating European judicial systems can be duly taken into account within the European Union and instructed the Secretary General to inform these bodies”.  A letter to this effect had been sent by the Secretary General, Mr Terry DAVIS, to the Vice-President of the European Commission, Mr Franco FRATTINI.  [Under the terms of the Communication of the European Commission COM(2008)38 of 4 February 2008, the CEPEJ will be closely involved in the work of the Forum for discussing EU justice policies and practice].

2.1.2 Optimising and improving the foreseeability of the timeframes of judicial procedures: the SATURN Centre

24.  Bearing in mind the work carried out by its Taskforce on Judicial Timeframes and drawing on its framework programme: “a new objective for judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimal and foreseeable timeframe”[6] and the results of the evaluation of judicial systems, the CEPEJ set up the SATURN Centre for Judicial Time Management.  The aim of the centre is to gather the necessary information to obtain a picture of the timeframes of judicial procedures in member states and prevent violations of Article 6 ECHR.  The Centre’s roles include analysing the timeframe situation in member states (timeframes per type of case, waiting times in proceedings, etc), providing member states with mechanisms to determine and analyse timeframes in judicial proceedings and providing guidelines for possible reforms to make judicial timeframes more foreseeable.

25.  The SATURN Centre is run by a steering group (“Groupe de Pilotage”), which began its work on the basis of a questionnaire sent to all the CEPEJ’s pilot courts.  It seeks to collect and process the largest possible amount of information relevant to the management and calculation of judicial timeframes and draw up guidelines for public decision-makers and justice practitioners.

2.1.3. Promoting the quality of justice

26.  The Working Group on the Quality of Justice (CEPEJ-GT-QUAL) was set up to develop ways of analysing and assessing the work carried out within courts to help bring about an improvement in the quality of the public service delivered by the justice system, in particular vis-à-vis the expectations of justice practitioners and users, in accordance with broadly accepted performance and efficiency criteria.  Accordingly, and drawing on the network of pilot courts, the Group began work on drafting a Checklist for promoting the quality of justice.

2.1.4 Developing alternative dispute resolution methods

27.  In accordance with the Action Plan of the 3^rd Summit, the CEPEJ adopted guidelines to facilitate the effective implementation of the four Council of Europe recommendations in the field of mediation (in civil, family, criminal and administrative matters).  The CDCJ and the CDPC were encouraged to make good use of these guidelines. [The Committee of Ministers took note of these guidelines at the 1021^st meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (12 March 2008)].

28.  The guidelines on mediation in the criminal law field were introduced and discussed in a workshop in Sofia (Bulgaria) on 13 - 14 December.

2.2 Developing exchanges with networks of professionals

29.  In accordance with Article 3.e of its Statute, the CEPEJ has continued developing networks of professionals involved in the justice system so as to be able to supplement its work with information and comments from practitioners, and facilitate assimilation by the main target groups of the measures it introduces.

2.2.1 Network of Pilot Courts        

30.  The Network of pilot courts seeks to ensure that the CEPEJ’s activities are firmly rooted in the reality of the day-to-day functioning of justice and ensure their relevance vis-à-vis the expectations of the judicial professions.  The Network’s 2^nd plenary meeting was held in Strasbourg on 19 March.  Only those courts which had been active within the network over the preceding year were invited – a total of 29 member states were represented. In order to support the CEPEJ’s work programme, the network had set up four committees on evaluation, quality, length of proceedings and mediation, with a work schedule being adopted for each committee.  While it paid tribute to the quality and value of the contributions from a number of courts, the CEPEJ expressed regret that there had been unequal investment by all pilot courts in implementing these work schedules.

2.2.2 Network of national correspondents

31.  The national correspondents responsible for co-ordinating states’ replies to the evaluation scheme for preparing the report on “European judicial systems” were asked to reply in line with the new scheme by 31 December (see paragraphs 17 et seq above).

2.3 Supporting member states in their judicial reforms

32.  Together with the Lithuanian Ministry of Justice, the CEPEJ co-organised a conference on “Mediation in Europe: present challenges and future developments” (Vilnius, 24 - 25 May), attended by several experts from the CEPEJ-GT-MED.

2.4 Contributing specific expertise to the debate on the functioning of the justice system

2.4.1  Providing the legal and judicial community with a forum for discussion and suggestions and bringing justice systems and their users closer

Within the Council of Europe

33.  The Chair of the CEPEJ was invited by the Monitoring Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to take part in an exchange of views (Paris, 7 June 2007) on the judicial systems evaluation process. The parliamentarians expressed great satisfaction with the quality of the work and its usefulness for comparing the functioning of the systems of justice in member states. This invitation in itself constituted a significant step forward in the relations which the CEPEJ wished to develop with the Assembly and also recognition of the Commission’s work and its approach to the evaluation of judicial systems.

34.  The President of the CEPEJ attended the 28^th Conference of European Ministers of Justice (Lanzarote, Spain - 25 and 26 October) on “Emerging issues of access to justice for vulnerable groups, in particular: migrants and asylum seekers; and children, including children as perpetrators of crime”, at which he had reiterated the CEPEJ’s willingness to contribute, within its sphere of competence, to the implementation of the resolutions adopted, including on the issue of child friendly justice.

35.  The CEPEJ has also developed working relationships with other committees of the Council of Europe, such as consultative committees (CCJE, CCPE), standard-setting committees (CDPC, CDCJ, CDDH) and other bodies addressing issues concerning the justice system (Venice Commission).

36.  The CEPEJ was represented in the Group of Specialists entrusted with the revision of Recommendation R(94)12 on the independence, efficiency and role of judges (CJ-S-JUST). The CEPEJ's report to the CDCJ on a better use of the CCJE's opinions (CEPEJ(2005)11) was at the origin of this work.

37.  At its 10^th plenary meeting (5 and 6 December), the CEPEJ celebrated its 5^th anniversary by means of a special session organised in the main court room of the European Court of Human Rights, at the invitation of the President of the Court, Mr Jean-Paul Costa, focusing on the question: “What do you expect from the CEPEJ in the next 5 years?”.  Participants in this session included the President of the Court, the Justice Ministers of Georgia and Moldova, senior judges, parliamentarians and ambassadors.  The proposals put forward during this session will be taken into account in determining the forthcoming action priorities for the CEPEJ.

In co-operation with the European Union

38.  The main event of the 5^th European Day of Civil Justice, jointly organised by the Council of Europe and the European Commission, was held in Aix-la-Chapelle on 8 November, at the invitation of the German authorities, in conjunction with the Belgian and Dutch authorities.  It was a major success: over 500 people took part in the event which had included simulated trials open to upper high school and university students and workshops for members of the legal community, focusing on the transfrontier aspects of child custody rights and visiting rights and on the execution of court decisions.

39.  To mark this European Day a number of events designed to raise public awareness of the judiciary were staged in twelve or so member states.

40.  In addition, the Council of Europe and the CEPEJ were involved in the European Union’s activities on “E-justice and e-law”, by taking part in the special working group set up by the Council of the European Union and in the Conference organised in Bremen (29 May – 1 June) under the German presidency of the European Union. The CEPEJ will continue its dialogue with the European Union concerning the development of information technologies for the efficiency of judicial systems.

41.  The CEPEJ was also represented at four seminars on management and administration of justice organised by the European Institute of Public Administration – European Centre for the Regions in the context of the EURO-MED programme funded by the European Commission (MEDA Programme) for the countries of the Mediterranean basin, held in Athens (12 – 15 February), Prague (12 – 15 March), Istanbul (16 – 19 April) and Amman (14 – 16 May).

With other international partners and certain specific countries

42.  The CEPEJ was also represented by several of its members or by the Secretariat at twenty or so events where issues of direct relevance to the functioning of the justice system were addressed.  These included:

§   the formal opening session of the legal year at the Dijon Court of Appeal (9 January);

§   a seminar on evaluating justice systems organised by the Netherlands Ministry of Justice (The Hague, 8 February);

§   a conference entitled “People, means and good practices for a better judicial service” (Padua, 22 and 23 February);

§   a seminar entitled “Justice benchmark monitoring”, organised by the American Bar Association (ABA) and the Arab Council for Judicial and Legal Studies (Amman, 25 and 26 February);

§   a colloquy on the quality of judicial decisions held in Poitiers (8 and 9 March);

§   a workshop on quality and efficiency in the organisation of judicial systems in Council of Europe member states – the contribution of Rechtspfleger/court clerks, held by the EUR (Bucharest, 14 – 16 March);

§   a seminar on information and communication technologies (Rome, 23 March).

§   a seminar on “Regulating career development and professional accountability of judges” held by UNODC, OSCE-ODIHR and the State Duma and the Supreme Court of Arbitration of the Russian Federation (Moscow, 24 and 25 May).

§   training course on “Public and private justice - dispute resolution in modern societies” under the auspices of the Inter-university Centre, Dubrovnik (28 May – 1 June);

§   the annual conference of The Hague Institute for Internationalisation and Law (HIIL): “How to measure the rule of law: a comparison of three studies” (The Hague, 25-27 October);

§   a meeting on a “Framework for Court Excellence”, at the initiative of the National Centre for State Courts and the Federal Judicial Centre (Washington DC, 13-15 November);

§   a colloquy organised by Italian lawyers looking at the means of justice (Caltagirone, 15 – 17 November);

§   a training course for central and east European judges, officers of the Ministries of Justice and representatives of the MEDA countries (The Hague, 21 November);

§   expert meeting of a research project entitled: “Measuring the price and quality of access to Justice” (Tilburg, 30 November – 1 December).

43.  The large number of events in which the CEPEJ was invited to participate showed the European and international judicial communities’ great interest in its work.

Means of communication

44.  A new six-monthly CEPEJ newsletter was initiated.  It is sent electronically to more than 1000 recipients (registered free of charge on a mailing list), and each edition deals with a topic relating to the functioning of justice with articles written by senior judicial or political figures and judges, together with news of what the CEPEJ has been doing.

 

2.4.2 Helping to ensure compliance with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights

45.  In his speech on the 5^th anniversary of the CEPEJ, the President of the European Court of Human Rights, Mr Jean-Paul COSTA, highlighted the close links between the Court and the CEPEJ, in view of the CEPEJ’s specific role in preventing violations of Article 6 of the Convention and strengthening the principle of subsidiarity.  He urged states which the Court ruled against to turn to the CEPEJ more systematically so that it could help them overcome the inadequacies in their judicial systems.  In the conclusions of the session, he also stressed that the CEPEJ should act as an early warning body in order to identify structural weaknesses in judicial systems, making it possible to anticipate new problems. In this way it would be, so to speak, the Court’s “aide-de-camp”.