Strasbourg, 1 November 2015
CEPEJ-SATURN(2015)9
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
Steering Group of the SATURN Centre for Judicial Time Management
(CEPEJ-SATURN)
18th meeting
Strasbourg, 22 and 24 September 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 18th meeting in Strasbourg on 22 and 24 September 2015, with Mr 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 plenary meeting of the network of pilot courts was held on 23 September 2015. The afternoon of 24 September was taken up with a meeting on CEPEJ co-operation in Albania.
II. Information from the Chair, Group members and the Secretariat
4. The Chair welcomed the Albanian, Moldovan and Jordanian delegations, who had been invited to acquaint themselves with the work of the SATURN Group, alongside the plenary meeting of the network of pilot courts which they were attending.
III. Updating of the 15 SATURN priority guidelines for judicial time management
5. The CEPEJ-SATURN had agreed that it was appropriate, after four years of use, to revise the 15 SATURN priority guidelines for judicial time management set out in the guide to implementing the SATURN judicial time management tools (document CEPEJ-SATURN(2011)9). It had decided to check whether some of the 15 guidelines were repetitive in implementation terms and whether a different order might be more logical.
6. The Group considered a revised version of the document prepared by the Chair and the Secretariat. It agreed to group the guidelines in three categories instead of the previous five. It also agreed to append to the guide an example of a report on judicial time management already prepared by CEPEJ experts during co-operation or court coaching activities.
7. The Working Group instructed the Secretariat to finalise the revised version of the document in the light of the discussions at the meeting (document CEPEJ-SATURN(2011)9REV1). The CEPEJ would be asked at its next plenary meeting (Strasbourg, 10-11 December 2015) to examine the document with a view to its adoption.
IV. Towards European Timeframes for Judicial Proceedings – Implementation Guide
8. Marco Fabri (Italy), expert, presented the document entitled “Towards European Timeframes for Judicial Proceedings – Implementation Guide” (document CEPEJ-SATURN(2011)9), which he had revised since the previous meeting of the SATURN Group.
9. The Working Group instructed the expert to clarify the tables in the document and to harmonise the definitions with those in document CEPEJ-SATURN(2015)8. It also wished to receive initial feedback from the pilot courts with a view to deciding on follow-up to the document.
V. Review of the definitions used in the CEPEJ tools for judicial case management (total cases, backlog, EUGMONT indicators, etc.)
10. A document setting out all the definitions used by the CEPEJ (document CEPEJ-SATURN(2015)8) had been prepared to provide a consistent common framework for all CEPEJ and working group members and all users of the CEPEJ tools.
11. The Working Group reviewed the various definitions set out in the document and discussed certain definitions and certain aspects such as the relationship between “backlog” and “pending cases” and between “incoming cases” and “new cases”. It was agreed that some mathematical formulas would be included under some definitions and that the source of the definition would be indicated under each one.
12. The Secretariat was asked to forward the document to the other two working groups once it had been finalised and translated so that they could check the accuracy of the definitions concerning their areas of activity.
VI. Preparation of the 10th meeting of the network of pilot courts
13. The Working Group considered the draft agenda for the meeting the following day and agreed to rearrange the discussions so that all participants could take part in all items and hence not to hold workshops in select groups. Accordingly, all the pilot courts would be able to discuss the following items: (i) updating of the comments and implementation examples concerning the SATURN guidelines; (ii) the definitions used in the various CEPEJ tools; (iii) implementation of common judicial timeframes at European level; (iv) virtual offices, in particular in first instance courts.
VII. Recent European Court of Human Rights case-law on the reasonable time criterion and possible follow-up by the CEPEJ
14. The SATURN Group welcomed Ms Corinne Amat, Head of Division in the Department for the Execution of the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, who explained that in the course of its monitoring of Court judgments, especially those concerning the reasonable time criterion, her department had the task of proposing practical measures to deal with excessive length of proceedings. This applied to pilot judgments, where the Court’s task was not only to decide whether a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights had occurred in the specific case but also to identify the systemic problem and give the government concerned clear indications of the type of remedial measures needed to resolve it. In order to target these remedial measures as effectively as possible, it would be useful for them to have access to certain CEPEJ data which were recent and consistent with a methodology recognised at European level.
15. To this end, the Chair proposed giving Ms Amat and her team a detailed presentation of the SATURN tools on 5 November 2015 to enable them to decide which ones could be useful and then agree together on how best to co-operate. They were also given information about the work concerning effective remedies currently being carried out by the CEPEJ-GT-QUAL.
VIII. Updating of Recommendation Rec(86)12 concerning measures to prevent and reduce the excessive workload in the courts
16. 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).
17. The Working Group took note of the decision taken by the Bureau of the CDCJ in June 2015, which read as follows:
“After consideration of the information note prepared by the Secretariat (document CDCJ(2015)10) on the proposal made by the CEPEJ to the CDCJ for a possible update of Recommendation No. R (86) 12 concerning measures to prevent and reduce the excessive workload in the courts, by allocating certain judicial tasks to court clerks, the Bureau expressed its interest in undertaking this work, subject to the necessary resources being available.”
18. The Secretariat said that this item would be on the agenda of the CDCJ’s next meeting at the end of October 2015.
19. 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 clerks.
20. The Working Group instructed the Secretariat carefully to follow the action take on the request and to notify the Working Group and the EUR so that a document could be prepared, if necessary, to provide further information on the matter to the CDCJ.
IX. Coaching programme/Training programme
France
21. France had 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, but the activities had not yet started.
Greece
22. Following the request submitted by the CEPEJ member for Greece, a team of CEPEJ experts (Jacques Bühler, Nina Betteto (Slovenia) and Maria Jesús Fraile Martin (Spain)) had visited Thessaloniki Administrative Court on 19 June 2015. The purpose of the visit had been to pass on recommendations from the CEPEJ on how to optimise the operation of the court and reduce the number of pending cases and the length of proceedings without altering staffing or budget levels.
23. The experts were finalising the report, which would be submitted to the court in November.
Malta
24. Further to the court coaching programme in June 2014, the Working Group was informed that the Maltese authorities had set up a committee to ensure proper follow-up to the CEPEJ’s recommendations. The activity was due to continue in 2016.
Kosovo
25. A co-operation project had started in Kosovo to evaluate the judicial system and the operation of the courts. Three meetings had already taken place.
X. Co-operation programmes
Albania
26. The work which had started 18 months previously was continuing in the six initial courts (High Court, Tirana District Court, Tirana First Instance Serious Crimes Court, Vlora Court of Appeal, Tirana First Instance Administrative Court and Elbasan District Court), where evaluation of the implementation of SATURN guidelines and the time management checklist was in progress. Other meetings were now being held in the other Albanian courts which were familiarising themselves with the CEPEJ indicators and definitions such as “pending cases” and “closed cases”, etc. Marco Fabri would be involved in following the programme.
Croatia
27. The co-operation programme with Croatia had started on 1 September 2014 and should be completed in June 2016 following an extension of six months compared with the initial duration. The programme was aimed at improving the quality of justice and reducing the length of proceedings in Karlovac pilot municipal court and then passing on the relevant recommendations to the other municipal courts in the country.
28. The CEPEJ experts had drawn up an action plan at the beginning of 2015, which included many recommendations based on the SATURN guidelines, while also recommending the introduction of mediation and conciliation.
29. The next meeting with Karlovac court would be held on 6 October 2015 and would look at the benefits of, and difficulties with, implementing the recommendations. The relevant information would provide the basis for a document presenting the work done in Karlovac to the other municipal courts. At the same time, satisfaction surveys had been drawn up and were now being distributed in other courts after being tried out in Varaždin pilot court.
Azerbaijan/Moldova
30. The programme had started in June 2015 and was aimed at implementing the CEPEJ tools in courts. The current issues concerned effective court management and the usefulness of judicial statistics gathered with new technology in this connection.
Morocco
31. The scope of the work programme had been extended and was no longer confined to the three pilot courts (Casablanca Court of First Instance, Agadir Administrative Court and Sidi Kacem Court). Other courts were going to be involved. In addition, an awareness-raising session about the CEPEJ tools and the quality checklist had been held in April 2015. A very effective and trusting relationship had developed between the team of CEPEJ experts and the Ministry for Justice and Freedoms, auguring well for future co-operation.
Tunisia
32. In March 2015, the new Justice Minister had asked the CEPEJ to extend its activities in Tunisia, and a new list of pilot courts with which the CEPEJ was going to work was being prepared. A seminar held in June 2015 had been attended by over a hundred participants. The CEPEJ had also been consulted about the Justice Ministry’s 2015-2019 action plan.
Jordan
33. Alongside the activities with the pilot courts, the CEPEJ had been working since January 2015 with a Justice Ministry team which was developing scorecards and automated judicial report systems at national level. The idea was to keep on supporting the team, which had begun integrating the CEPEJ indicators.
XI. Other business
34. Jon T Johnsen proposed that a methodology providing all the information needed for implementing the various CEPEJ co-operation programmes be prepared. The document would be a kind of “vade mecum” for all the experts, from the beginning to the end of co-operation programmes; it would be particularly useful for those experts who did not yet have much experience of the CEPEJ’s activities and tools.
35. The Working Group instructed the Secretariat to prepare an initial draft to be reviewed by Jacques Bühler, Jon T Johnsen and Giacomo Oberto before being distributed for finalisation at the meeting of CEPEJ experts to be held on 6 November 2015.
APPENDIX I
AGENDA
1. Opening of the meeting
Ouverture de la reunion
2. Information by the President, members of the Group and the Secretariat
Information du Président, des membres du Groupe et du Secrétariat
3. Preparation of the 10th plenary meeting of the network of pilot courts
Préparation de la 10ème réunion plénière du Réseau des tribunaux référents
4. Updating of the 15 SATURN priority Guidelines for judicial time management
Mise à jour des 15 lignes directrices SATURN prioritaires sur la gestion du temps judiciaire
5. Towards European timeframes for judicial proceedings - implementation guide
Vers des délais judiciaires européens - Guide de mise en oeuvre
1. Presentation by Marco FABRI/Présentation par Marco FABRI
2. Discussion about the follow-up to be given to this Guide/Discussion sur le suivi à donner à ce Guide
6. Review of the definitions used in the CEPEJ tools for judicial case management (total cases, backlog, EUGMONT indicators, etc.)
Révision des définitions utilisées dans les outils CEPEJ concernant la gestion des affaires judiciaires (volume d’affaires, arriéré, indicateurs EUGMONT, etc.)
7. Recent ECtHR case law to the reasonable time criterion and possible follow-up by the CEPEJ
Jurisprudence récente de la CrEDH quant au critère du délai raisonnable et éventuel suivi par la CEPEJ
8. Updating of Recommendation Rec(86)12 concerning measures to prevent and reduce the excessive workload in the courts
Mise à jour de la Recommandation Rec(86)12 relative à certaines mesures visant à prévenir et réduire la surcharge de travail des tribunaux
9. Co-operation programmes / Programmes de coopération
10. Albania / Albanie
11. Croatia / Croatie
12. Morocco / Maroc
13. Tunisia / Tunisie
14. Jordan / Jordanie
15. PCF (Azerbaijan / Azerbaïdjan ; Republic of Moldova / Republic of Moldova)
10. Court coaching programmes
a) Malta / Malte
b) Thessaloniki / Thessalonique
c) Other / autres
11. Information by the observers / Information des observateurs
12. Other items/Divers
* * * * * * * * *
24.9.2015 (afternoon) : Meeting concerning the cooperation project with Albania
1. Opening and targets of the meeting
2. Discussion of recommendations (or synthesis of the recommendations made in the specific court coaching reports) to the document " Time management in Albanian courts. Major findings of the EU/COE support to efficiency of justice project (SEJ) " draft written by Aida Gugu, Jon T. Johnsen and Elira Kokona
3. Discussion about court coaching reports (in 2 groups: one with Jon T. Johnsen and one with Jacques Bühler)
4. Next steps and specially the schedule of the next mission of the international experts in Albania (23 – 27.11.2015)
5. Other points
APPENDIX II
List of Participants / Liste des participants
Irakli ADEISHVILI, Chairman, Chamber of Civil Cases, Tbilisi City Court (Vice-President of the CEPEJ / Vice-Président de la CEPEJ)
Ivana BORZOVÁ, Head of Department of Civil Supervision, Ministry of Justice
Jacques BÜHLER, Secrétaire Général suppléant, Tribunal fédéral suisse (President the Group / Président du Groupe)
Ivan CRNČEC, Assistant Minister of Justice
Francesco DEPASQUALE, Magistrate, Legal Advisor to the Director General, Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs
Giacomo OBERTO, Magistrat, Tribunal de Grande Instance
***
OTHER EXPERT / AUTRE EXPERT
Bartolomeo CAPPELLINA, Doctorant – PhD candidate, Centre Emile Durkheim, Sciences Po Bordeaux, Université de Bordeaux
***
Scientific ExpertS / Experts scientifiques
Marco FABRI, Director, Research Institute on Judicial Systems, National Research Council (IRSIG-CNR)
Jon T. JOHNSEN, Professor in Law, Faculty of law, University of Oslo
***
Invited States / Pays invités
ALBANIA /ALBANIE
Aida BUSHATI, National Long-Term Consultant, EU / CoE “Support to Efficiency of Justice – SEJ” project
Elira KOKONA, National Long-Term Consultant, EU / CoE “Support to Efficiency of Justice – SEJ”
Eriona HAXHIA (Ms), National Long-Term Consultant, EU / CoE “Support to Efficiency of Justice – SEJ” project
Tea JALIASHVILLI, Project manager, EU / CoE “Support to Efficiency of Justice – SEJ” project, Council of Europe’s Office in Tirana
JORDAN / JORDANIE
Fatina ALABWEINI, Head of the Court Quality Systems Section, Ministry of Justice,
Amer ALMHARAT, Programing Specialist, Ministry of Justice
REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA / REPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA.
Dumitru VISTERNICEAN, Member of the Superior Council of Magistrates, Chisinau
Tamara KISHKA-DONEVA, Judge of the Supreme Court of Justice, Chisinau
Ion PLEȘCA, President of the Chisinau Appellate Court, Chisinau
Oleg MELNICIUC, President of the Riscani court of Chisinau Municipality, Chisinau
***
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 de Strasbourg
Michel CRAMET, Directeur Délégué à l’Administration Régionale Judiciaire, Cour d'appel de LYON
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF BAILIFFS / UNION INTERNATIONALE DES HUISSIERS DE JUSTICE ET OFFICIERS JUDICIAIRES (UIHJ)
EUROPEAN COMMISSION / COMMISSION EUROPEENNE
Council of the European Union / Conseil de l’Union européenne
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (LIBE COMMISSION) / PARLEMENT EUROPEEN (COMMISSION LIBE)
***
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]
Leonid ANTOHI, Project Manager/Manager de programme, Tel: +33 (0)3 90 21 49 65, e-mail: [email protected]
Muriel ISELI, Administrator / Administratrice, Tel : +33 (0)3 8841 33 63, e-mail: [email protected]
Paul MEYER, Project Manager, Norway Grants Project, Partnership between Croatia and CEPEJ, Secretariat of the CEPEJ / Secrétariat de la CEPEJ, Tél : +33 (0)3 90 21 55 22, e-mail : [email protected]
Jean-Pierre GEILLER, Administration et Finances / Administration and Finances, Tél : +33(0) 3 88 41 22 27, e-mail : [email protected]
Annette SATTEL, Administration et Réseaux / Administration and Networks, Tél: +33 (0)3 88 41 39 04, e-mail: [email protected]
Elisabeth HEURTEBISE, Assistant/Assistante, Secretariat of the CEPEJ / Secrétariat de la CEPEJ, e-mail: [email protected]
TRAINEE / STAGIAIRE
Mariana FERNANDEZ PUCHE
INTERPRETERS / INTERPRETES
Rémy JAIN
Christine TRAPP-GILL
Monique PALMIER -RICHTER
Diana LEŞANU
Eleonora VINŢELER
Ligia MIHĀIESCU