CEPEJ(2017)8

EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE

(CEPEJ)

Activity Report of the CEPEJ - 2016

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 2016 in accordance with its Activity Programme[2]. It was submitted to the Committee of Ministers for approval, pursuant to Articles 7-6 and 7-7 of the CEPEJ Statute.  

1.   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE (CEPEJ) in 2016

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 regularly represented on the CEPEJ. Among the states enjoying observer status, Japan, Israel, Morocco and Tunisia participated in the work of the CEPEJ. Jordan was associated with the work, within the framework of cooperation programmes.

3.     Mr Georg STAWA (Austria) was President of the CEPEJ. In the course of the year, Mr Irakli ADEISHVILI (Georgia) was replaced by Mr Ramin GURBANOV (Azerbaijan) as Vice-President of the CEPEJ, the latter being replaced by Mr Noel RUBOTHAM (Ireland) as Bureau member, together with Ms Ivana BORZOVA (Czech Republic).

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) and the European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ) were also represented at CEPEJ plenary meetings.

5.     The European Union was regularly represented at the plenary and working group meetings, by the Council of the European Union, the European Commission, the Secretariat of the European Parliament and the Fundamental Rights Agency.

6.     The European Association of Judges, MEDEL (Magistrats Européens pour la Démocratie et les Libertés), the European Federation of Administrative Judges, the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (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), the Council of the Notariats of the European Union (CNUE)
 and the American Bar Association – Rule of Law Initiative have observer status with the CEPEJ.

1.2 Meetings of the CEPEJ

7.     The CEPEJ held two plenary meetings in Strasbourg (29 June – 1 July and 6-7 December). The Bureau of the CEPEJ met twice in Paris (22 January and 6 October). The Working Groups met regularly according to the Activity Programme, with, in the Chair, respectively Mr Jean-Paul JEAN (France) for the group on the Evaluation of Judicial Systems (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL), Mr Jacques BÜHLER (Switzerland) for the Steering group of the SATURN Centre for Judicial Time Management and Mr François PAYCHERE (Switzerland) for the group on the Quality of Justice (CEPEJ-GT-QUAL).

8.     The 10^th plenary meeting of the Network of national correspondents entrusted with the collection of judicial data took place in Strasbourg (4 May). The 11^th plenary meeting of the Network of pilot courts was held in Strasbourg (21 September).

2.   ACTIVITIES AND ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE CEPEJ IN 2016

9.     The CEPEJ’s activity programme is part of the Pillar “Rule of law”, Sector “Justice”, Programme “Independence and efficiency of justice” of the Council of Europe’s Programme and Budget.  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.

10.  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, with a view to:

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

§   promoting the public service of justice and 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 reducing the workload of 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.

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

11.  The 2014 - 2016 cycle for evaluating the day-to-day functioning of judicial systems was successfully concluded with the publication of:

§  the "Report on European judicial systems – Efficiency and quality of justice - Key facts and figures - Edition 2016"[3],

§  the thematic report “European judicial systems – Use of information technology in courts”[4],

§  the new CEPEJ-STAT dynamic data base.

This work was adopted at the 27^th plenary meeting (29 June – 1 July) and made public on 6 October at a press conference in Paris.

12.  The CEPEJ 2016 report was widely disseminated in member states and beyond, confirmation of the fact that it constitutes a major reference for reforming public policies of justice in Europe.

13.  The Committee of Ministers, relevant national administrations and the judicial bodies of member states also showed considerable interest in the report. The main European media reported and commented widely on the report[5]. Several states indicated that the report had been discussed in the media and by political bodies such as the ministry of justice, parliament, political parties and judicial bodies, such as councils for the judiciary, as well as professional associations. Some states also confirmed that the report had been used directly in carrying out judicial reforms. Several states had the report translated either in full or in part.

14.  The CEPEJ-STAT data base is unique in the world as regards justice. It presents a detailed overview of the functioning of judicial systems in 45 member states, as well as Israel as an observer state, together with time-series statistics highlighting changes in the judicial systems in these countries.

15.  The development of CEPEJ-STAT is a major step forward in providing policy makers, justice professionals, researchers and the public with unprecedented interactive information to guide public policies of justice;

16.  The comparative tables and graphs and the comments help to understand the day-to-day functioning of courts, underline the main trends in judicial systems and identify any problems with a view to improving the quality, fairness and efficiency of the public service of justice. It is a sound tool for enhancing mutual knowledge of judicial systems and strengthening mutual confidence between judicial professionals.

Implementation of the peer evaluation process

17.  In the context of the peer evaluation of judicial statistics systems, an expert visit was organised to Serbia. This process aims to assist states in their efforts to enhance the quality of their judicial statistics, improve their statistical systems and ensure that national statistics are consistent with the standards set out in the CEPEJ’s evaluation scheme. It provides an opportunity 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.

Co-operation with the European Union

18.  The Council of the EU, the European Commission and the European Parliament are regularly represented at the preparatory meetings of the CEPEJ. They were particularly interested in the CEPEJ report as a tool designed to strengthen mutual confidence between judicial systems.

19.  The “EU Justice Scoreboard” was published by the European Commission (EC) in April 2016, mainly based on the Study on the functioning of judicial systems in the EU member states carried out by the CEPEJ using its own methodology and information transmitted by the states concerned in the framework of the CEPEJ evaluation exercise. A new Study, conducted following the collection, processing and analysis of data updated in 2016, was presented to the EC at the end of 2016 [with a view to the publication of a new Scoreboard in spring 2017]. This exemplary cooperation between the EC and the Council of Europe is based on a multi-year contract under which the EC contributes financially to the work of the CEPEJ (€ 200,000 per year).

20.  The EC’s trust in the CEPEJ data and methodology must be highlighted. The involvement of the CEPEJ in the EC’s instrument strengthens the CEPEJ’s preeminent role as regards justice evaluation, as well as the synergies between the European Union and the Council of Europe in this field, and it increases the visibility of the CEPEJ and of the Council of Europe.

Co-operation with the OECD

21.  The OECD pays particular attention to the CEPEJ’s work for evaluating the situation of the judicial systems in their European member states, and the CEPEJ methodology for extending such evaluation to non-European members. The CEPEJ Secretariat participated in relevant OECD meetings.

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

22.  The CEPEJ SATURN Centre for Judicial Time Management continued its work as a European observatory of judicial timeframes and its work to develop appropriate tools, with the expert assistance of the CEPEJ Network of pilot courts.

23.  In this context, the CEPEJ adopted an essential document: the “Implementation Guide: towards European timeframes for judicial proceedings”[6] containing for the first time quantified indicators for court case flow management;

24.  In a qualitative approach, the CEPEJ court coaching programme for implementing SATURN tools on judicial time management is the basis for CEPEJ cooperation programmes (see below).

2.1.3. Promoting the quality of justice

25.  The CEPEJ adopted several major tools to support states in reforms aimed at strengthening the quality of the public service of justice:

§  the document “Measuring the quality of judicial services”[7] which defines for the first time indicators for measuring the quality of justice,

§  the” Guidelines on how to drive change towards cyberjustice”[8] which compile details of the most recent experience gained in the context of European judicial systems and take a critical look at IT development as applied to the justice system and the challenges it poses for justice professionals and policymakers,

§  the “Good practice guide to improve the functioning of justice”[9] regarding structural measures taken by the member States in addition to the effective remedies required by ECHR Article 13,

§  an updated version of the “Handbook on conducting satisfaction surveys for court users“[10].

26.  Coaching programmes aimed at organising court satisfaction surveys based on the CEPEJ Handbook are used in several cooperation programmes (see below).

2.2 Supporting states in their judicial reforms

27.  The CEPEJ pursued a significant effort in order that its methodology, tools and the experience of its members and experts may be made available for capacity-building and cooperation programmes, enabling in this way the Council of Europe to offer beneficiary states a strong added value as regards reforms of judicial systems. Very good synergieshave been developed betweenthe CEPEJ’s intergovernmental work and the direct and in-depth use of this work to support judicial reforms at national level. Such cooperation targeted both the national authorities responsible for justice policies (Ministries of Justice, Parliaments, High Councils for the Judiciary) and individual courts.

28.  With regard to case flow management and judicial time management, specific cooperation was pursued with the Court of Avignon (France) and the Administrative Court of First Instance of Thessaloniki (Greece).

29.  Specific cooperation programmes were carried out by the CEPEJ to support in particular judicial reforms:

§  in Albania and Kosovo*as part of the "Horizontal Facility for Western Balkans and Turkey" conducted with the European Union,

§  in Azerbaijan and the Republic of Moldova through the “Programmatic Cooperation Framework for the countries of the Eastern Partnership”, conducted with the European Union,

§  in Croatia as part of the Programme "Improvement of the way cases are handled by the judicial system and introduction of SATURN time management tools in the courts " conducted in cooperation with the EEA/Norway Grants,

§  in Turkey to develop the practice of mediation in civil disputes, with the Swedish International Cooperation Development Agency (Sida),

§  in Morocco under the “Programme to support reform of the justice sector”, conducted with the European Union,

§  in Tunisia and Jordan as part of the Programme “Towards strengthened democratic governance in the Southern Mediterranean", conducted with the European Union.

2.3 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 together

30.  The 28^th plenary meeting was opened by Mr. André POTOCKI, Judge at the European Court of Human Rights in respect of France, who:

§  underlined the close links between the Court and the CEPEJ and the key role of the CEPEJ in facilitating the proper functioning of the Court's mechanisms as regards subsidiarity,

§  recalled the essential work of the CEPEJ in the field of judicial time management and for  promoting the importance of court users in judicial policies,

§  indicated that judges of the Strasbourg Court welcomed the recent CEPEJ evaluation reports on judicial systems which were valuable tools for the Court's work,

§  highlighted the need to improve the situation within  judicial systems to ensure the right to an effective remedy as provided for by Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights and welcomed the publication of the “Good practice guide to improve the functioning of justice”.

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

32.  The European Justice Day was celebrated around 25 October in some twenty member States. The flagship event of this Day was organised in Belgrade (Serbia).

33.  In cooperation with the French Institut des Hautes Etudes sur la Justice and the Montreal Cyberjustice Laboratory (Canada), the CEPEJ hosted the "1st Cyberjustice Conference - Europe" in Strasbourg on 5 December. It decided to take this work into account in the context of its own work to enhance the efficiency and quality of justice through the use of information technology.

With specific member states and other international partners

34.  The CEPEJ was represented by its members or Secretariat at 57 events, which took place in 26 states in Europe and in other parts of the world and addressed issues of direct relevance to the functioning of justice. Moreover, numerous European media refer regularly to the work of the CEPEJ. This confirms the importance that the European and international judicial communities attach to the work of the CEPEJ.

Means of communication

35.  Two issues of the "CEPEJ Newsletter" were published electronically and disseminated to almost 2.500 recipients (registered free of charge on a mailing list), dealing with topics relating to the functioning of justice. It included articles written by senior judicial or political figures and experts, together with news the CEPEJ’s activities.

36.  The CEPEJ’s internet site continues to meet with increasing success with an average of almost 10.000 connections per month. During the weeks following the publication of the 2016 Evaluation report, the website logged more than 50.000 hits. The site remains a standard reference within the European judicial community.