CEPEJ(2010)4

EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE

(CEPEJ)

2009 Activity Report

adopted by the CEPEJ at its 15^th plenary meeting (9 and 10 September 2010)

[and approved by the Ministers’ Deputies at their 1098th meeting (17 November 2010)

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 2008 in accordance with its Programme of Activities.[2] It was drafted by the Bureau, adopted by the CEPEJ at its 15^th Plenary Meeting (9 and 10 September 2010) 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 2009

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 two states (Liechtenstein and San Marino) were not represented on the CEPEJ during the year. Among those states enjoying observer status with the Council of Europe, Japan participated in tow plenary meetings and Canada and Mexico were represented in one plenary meeting.

3.     Mr Fausto DE SANTIS (Italy) was President of the CEPEJ and Mr John STACEY (United Kingdom), Vice-President. Ms Elsa GARCIA MALTRAS de BLAS (Spain) was also members of the Bureau and Ms Ivana BORZOVA (Czech Republic) was replaced by Mr Georg STAWA (Austria) as the second member of the Bureau at the 13^th plenary meeting.

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), the European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) and the Steering Committee on Human Rights (CDDH) were 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, the European Commission and the Secretariat of the European Parliament.

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 (CCBE), 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 13^th plenary meeting on 10-11 June and its 14^th plenary meeting on 9-10 December in Strasbourg.

8.     The Bureau of the CEPEJ met in Strasbourg on 28 January and 7 October.

9.     The Working Group for the Evaluation of Judicial Systems (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL) met in Strasbourg on 12-13 March and in Paris on 2 October, with Mr Jean-Paul JEAN (France) in the chair. The steering group of the SATURN Centre for Judicial Time Management met in Strasbourg on 26-27 March and 9 and 11September, with Mr Jacques BÜHLER (Switzerland) in the chair. The Working Group on the Quality of Justice (CEPEJ-GT-QUAL) met in Strasbourg on 18-19 May and 12-13November, with Mr François PAYCHERE (Switzerland) in the chair. The Working Group on the execution of court decisions (CEPEJ-GT-EXE) met in Strasbourg on 29-30 January and 15-16 October, with Mr John MARSTON (United Kingdom) in the chair.

10.  The fourth plenary meeting of the CEPEJ’s network of pilot courts was held in Strasbourg on 10 September.

2.   ACTIVITIES AND ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE CEPEJ IN 2009

11.  The CEPEJ’s work programme is part of 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;

§  contributing 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 3^rd Summit (Warsaw, May 2005), the Heads of State and Government of the 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.  The first CEPEJ's medium-term activity programme in 2005 adopted in 2005[4] to meet these requirements was successfully completed by the end of 2009. Therefore the CEPEJ adopted at its 14^th plenary meeting a new Medium term programme[5] for the period 2010 – 2014.

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

15.  The CEPEJ launched its third cycle for evaluating the day-to-day functioning of the judicial systems in all the member states. This 2008 – 2010 cycle is based on the revised Evaluation Scheme adopted by the CEPEJ at its 13th plenary meeting, as well as its subsequent Explanatory note[6]. The national correspondents in the member states were invited to provide the 2008 data though the electronic scheme by 31 December. The national authorities entrusted with judicial data collection and the member states were invited in particular to take into account the CEPEJ's Guidelines on judicial statistics -GOJUST[7], while paying special attention to the answers regarding case flow management in courts. A scientific expert was appointed by the Secretariat to process and analyse judicial data and thus supporting the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL in drafting the evaluation report.

16.  On a proposal from the French delegation, the CEPEJ set up in 2008 a pilot peer review co-operation process on judicial statistics. Two evaluation visits were undertaken in 2009 by CEPEJ experts in Malta (18-19 May) and in the Russian Federation (xx-xx November). 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 makes 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.

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

17.  The CEPEJ's SATURN Centre for judicial time management is responsible for collecting information necessary for the knowledge of judicial timeframes in the member states for preventing violations of Article 6 ECHR. This involves, in particular, analysing the situation of existing timeframes in the member states (timeframes per types of cases, waiting times in the proceedings, etc.), providing member states with knowledge and analytical tools of judicial timeframes of proceedings and drawing up guidelines for possible reforms aimed at making judicial timeframes more foreseeable.

18.  The Steering Group of the Centre has drawn up a specific questionnaire designed to give a better picture both of the length of proceedings by types of case and of the monitoring procedures in place, addressed to all the pilot courts of the CEPEJ.

19.  The CEPEJ agreed that the SATURN Centre’s aim is to become progressively a permanent European observatory of judicial timeframes.

2.1.3. Promoting the quality of justice

20.  The CEPEJ-GT-QUAL aims to promote the quality of the public service of justice, at the national and mainly at the court level.  The Group pursued its work to draft:

§  a report including a structured summary of quality systems in a sample of member states (7), under the direction of Professor Philip Langbroek (Utrecht University);

§  a report on the contractualisation of judicial process, on the basis of a preliminary questionnaire and study carried out by the scientific expert Julien Lhuillier (Lausanne University);

§  a handbook making it possible to develop satisfaction surveys of professionals and court users, on the basis of a preliminary study and draft by the scientific experts Jean-Paul Jean (Prosecutor of the Court of Appeal of Paris) and Hélène Jorry (researcher at the University of Versailles-Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines); the draft handbook was trialled by several CEPEJ's pilot courts.

21.  The CEPEJ organised on 9 December a study session on "the measurement of the performance of judicial systems and courts", highlighted the pre-eminent position of this issue for improving the efficiency and the quality of a public service of justice turned to court users while safeguarding the independence of judges and instructed its working groups to take into account the content of this debate in their current and future work, so that it remains a major concern of the CEPEJ's agenda. A special file including in particular the presentations made at the study session was posted on the CEPEJ's web site.

2.1.4 Facilitating the enforcement of court decisions

22.  Following the preparatory work carried out by the CEPEJ-GT-EXE, the CEPEJ adopted at its 14^th plenary meeting the "Guidelines for a better implementation of the Council of Europe's Recommendation on enforcement"[8]. This document aims to promote and facilitate the effective implementation in the member states of the existing European norms regarding the enforcement of court decisions in civil, administrative and criminal law matters. Indeed, there is no efficient justice system where the court decisions are not properly enforced, in due time.

2.2 Developing exchanges with networks of professionals

23.  In accordance with Article 3.e of its Statute, the CEPEJ has created networks of professionals involved in the justice area in order to be able to support its work on the basis of information and comments from practitioners and to facilitate the appropriation of the measures which it establishes by those at whom they are primarily aimed.

2.2.1 Network of Pilot Courts

24.  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 professionals. The Network’s 4th ^rd plenary meeting was held in Strasbourg. Only those courts which had been active within the network over the preceding year were invited – a total of 33 member states were represented. In order to support the CEPEJ’s work programme, the network organised its own activities around those of its working groups on quality of justice and length of proceedings. A work schedule for 2010 was adopted[9].

2.2.2 Lisbon Network

25.  At its 14^th plenary meeting, the CEPEJ decided to include the European Network for the exchange of information between persons and entities responsible for the training of judges and public prosecutors (Lisbon Network) into its activity programme. The working modalities of this Network with the CEPEJ would be further defined, so as to promote court management and the quality of the public service of justice within the judicial training curricula. A proper cooperation with the CCJE would be ensured..

2.3 Supporting member states in their judicial reforms

26.  The CEPEJ developed an intensive targeted cooperation with several member states, at the request of the relevant national authorities.

 

27.  The CEPEJ approved thereport prepared by the experts appointed by its Bureau on the methods for evaluating the workload of judges, prosecutors and judicial investigators ; criteria for individual evaluation of judges, prosecutors and judicial investigators and criteria and indicators for classifying courts and prosecution offices in Bulgaria[10]. This report was drafted on the basis of a fact finding mission in Bulgaria (Sofia, 21 – 22 January). A follow up meeting was proposed for analysing the recommendations made by the experts. This follow up has not taken place so far.

28.  The CEPEJ approved the report prepared by the experts appointed by its Bureau on the policy of the Portuguese Ministry of Justice on dematerialization and the use of ICT in the filed of justice[11]. This report was drafted on the basis of a fact finding mission in Portugal (Lisbon, 16 – 17 March).

29.  The CEPEJ approved the report prepared by the experts appointed by its Bureau, assessing the Portuguese policy on procedural flows and fight against judicial backlogs[12]. This report was drafted on the basis of a fact finding mission in Portugal (Lisbon, 25 – 27 February).

30.  The CEPEJ approved the report prepared by the experts appointed by its Bureau on court organisation in Armenia[13]. This report was drafted on the basis of a fact finding mission in Armenia (Yerevan, 15 – 17 April). The Armenian authorities indicated that an action plan would be prepared to follow the recommendations of the report.

31.  Experts appointed by the CEPEJ's Bureau participated in a targeted cooperation activity organised in cooperation with the Department for the execution of ECHR's judgement on the Code of execution in the Russian Federation (Moscow), as a follow up to the activity carried out in 2007 on the execution of court decisions rendered against public authorities.

32.  Experts appointed by the CEPEJ's Bureau carried out an evaluation visit on the functioning of the justice system in Mata (2-4 December). The Bureau approved a report including concrete recommendations, to be further discussed with the relevant authorities in Malta.

2.4 Contributing specific expertise to the debate on the functioning of the justice system: providing the legal and judicial community with a forum for discussion and suggestions and bringing justice systems and their users closer

2.4.1 Within the Council of Europe

33.  The CEPEJ also developed specific working relations with other committees of the Council of Europe, such as the advisory committees (CCJE, CCPE), standard-setting committees (CDPC, CDCJ, CDDH) and other bodies dealing with matters relating to justice (Venice Commission).

34.  Specific cooperation was established between the CEPEJ, through the Steering group of the SATURN Centre, and the Committee of experts on effective remedies for excessive length of proceedings (DH-RE) which finalised a draft recommendation on effective remedies for excessive length of proceedings as well as of Guide of good practice aimed at being joined to the Recommendation, which draws in particular on the work of the CEPEJ as regards judicial time management.

35.  The CEPEJ also cooperated with the Group of Specialists on the judiciary (CJ-S-JUD) and actively participated in the work aimed at reviewing Recommendation R(94)12 on the independence, efficiency and role of judges.

2.4.2 In cooperation with the European Union

      Stockholm Programme

36.  The CEPEJ was active in the preparation stage of the Stockholm Programme adopted in December 2009 by the EU member states and aiming to determine the EU priorities in the field of justice, liberties and security. Within this framework, the issue of evaluating European justice systems was indeed at stake, as an essential element for strengthening mutual confidence between the member states. The CEPEJ's unique mechanisms were considered as reference for developing possible evaluation process adapted to the EU's needs.

37.  Therefore the CEPEJ's Secretariat was invited to participate in several preparatory events in order to explain the CEPEJ's process and acquis as regards evaluation of justice:

§  informal meeting of the JLS advisors of the EU member states on the mechanisms for evaluating the Rule of law and justice within the EU, in the context of criminal law (18 February, Brussels),

§  Colloquy "Preparing the Stockholm Programme: a strategic agenda for liberty, security and justice" (4 – 5 March, Bruges),

§  Colloquy on the follow up and assessment mechanisms in the field of criminal law cooperation within the EU (2 - 3 June, Maastricht).

38.  Within the framework of its 13th plenary meeting, the CEPEJ hold an exchange of views with representatives of the outgoing and incoming Czech and Swedish EU presidencies, the European Commission and the European Parliament to define possible modalities through which the EU could benefit from the CEPEJ's unique mechanisms, in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the European Union and the Council of Europe. The CEPEJ reiterated its willingness to cooperate fully with the relevant EU bodies in this field.

Justice Forum

39.  The CEPEJ is a privileged partner of the European Commission’s Justice Forum established by the Communication of 4 February 2008, the inaugural session of which was held in Brussels on 30 May. This Forum is intended to develop regular exchanges on the functioning of justice between the main players (Governments of the member states, professional associations, NGOs, etc.). The CEPEJ was represented in the plenary meeting of the Justice Forum (Brussels, 5 June) and took part in various meetings of the working sub-groups of the Forum (see below).

The "Crystal Scales of Justice" and the European Day of Justice

40.  For its fourth edition, the “Crystal Scales of Justice”, organised jointly by the Council of Europe and the European Commission, was awarded for the first time in the criminal law field. The Jury composed of 11 eminent European lawyers drew up a list of winners from among the 35 entries, a number which proves the interest generated by that event. The Prize was awarded within the Framework of the EU Justice Forum (Brussels, 5 June) to the Central prison service of Poland for the project "Voluntary work of detainees in Poland". The Jury awarded special mentions to the Office of the General Prosecutor of the Land of Brandenburg (Germany) for the project "SAS – electronic justice", the Association for probation and judicial mediation (Czech Republic) for the project "tutorship" and the District Court of Amsterdam (the Netherlands) for the project "European criminal law and Human Rights Chamber".

41.  The flagship event of the 7^th European Day of Justice, organised jointly by the Council of Europe and the European Commission, was held in Freiburg (Germany) on 10 November at the invitation of the authorities of the Land of Baden-Württemberg and the German federal authorities. On the occasion of this European Day, events designed to inform the public about the judicial systems were held in some 15 member states.

Other issues

42.  The Council of Europe and the CEPEJ were involved in the work of the European Union on "E-justice and e-law", through participation in the special EU working group on judicial data processing (Brussels, 31 January) and the working group of the Justice Forum on e-justice (Brussels, 5 March). The CEPEJ will continue its discussions with the bodies of the European Union on the development of information technologies for the efficiency of judicial systems.

43.  The CEPEJ's secretariat was invited to participate in a EU meeting on the situation of justice in the Russian Federation (Brussels, 10 November), where it highlighted the positive evolution of the day-to-day functioning of the Russian court system, relying on the analysis of the facts and figures of the CEPEJ's evaluation process as well as of the peer evaluation visit on judicial statistics carried out by the CEPEJ's expert team in November.

2.4.3 With other international partners and certain specific countries

44.  The CEPEJ was also represented by several of its members or by the Secretariat in 15 events where issues of direct relevance to the functioning of the justice system were addressed. These included:

§  colloque sur "l'émergence d'une culture juridique européenne" organisé par la Faculté de droit d'Aix-Marseille ((16 – 17 janvier, Aix-en-Provence, France),

§  séminaire sur "Le développement de la qualité dans le domaine de la justice", organisé par l'Institut européen d'administration publique (29 - 30 janvier, Luxembourg),

§  Journées judiciaires du Léman, organisées par le Tribunal de Grande Instance de Thonon-les-Bains (5 février, Thonon-les-Bains, France),

§  réunion du groupe de travail sur la gestion de la qualité du Réseau européen des conseils de la justice (12 - 13 février, Riga, Estonie),  

§  Conférence de la Mer Noire sur l'intégration régionale et la croissance inclusive, organisée par la Banque Mondiale (23 - 24 février, Athènes, Grèce),

§  réunion de travail sur l'accès à la justice, organisée par l'Agence des Droits Fondamentaux de l'Union européenne (23 avril, Vienne, Autriche),

§  rencontre annuelle dans le cadre du jumelage entre les fonctionnaires de justice du secteur de la Cour d’Appel de Colmar et les Rechtspfleger (BDR) des secteurs des tribunaux de grande instance d’Offenburg, Freiburg, Baden-Baden et Waldshut-Tiengen (7 mai, Cour d’Appel de Colmar, France),

§  formation sur "Résolution des litiges privés et publics dans les sociétés modernes – Exécution, caractère exécutoire, et effectivité de la protection juridique", organisée par le Centre inter-universitaire de Dubrovnik (25 – 29 mai, Dubrovnik, Croatie),

§  Symposium on Court and mediation: new path for justice (18 – 19 June, Barcelona, Spain),

§  Colloquy organised by the High Council of Judiciary of Spain: the reform of the criminal system (21 - 24 July, Coruna, Spain),

§  20^th Congress of the International Union of Judicial Officers (7 – 11 September, Marseille, France),

§  Court Case Management Forum (3 October, Dubaï, United Arab Emirates),

§  Annual Congress of the European Association of Rechtspfleger (8 – 11 October, La Grande Motte, France),

§  EURO-MED meeting on justice organised by the European Commission (19 October, Brussels)

§  4^th Conference of the International Association for Court Administration (2 – 5 November, Istanbul, Turkey).

45.  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

46.  Two issues of the "CEPEJ Newsletter" were published, sent electronically to close to 2.000 recipients (registered free of charge on a mailing list), dealing with topics relating to the functioning of justice with articles written by senior judicial or political figures and experts, together with news of what the CEPEJ has been doing.

47.  The CEPEJ’s internet site has met with increasing success in 2009. The site is now a standard reference within the European judicial community.