CEPEJ_rev

Strasbourg, 25 April 2016

CEPEJ-SATURN(2016)3

EUROPEAN Commission FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE

(CEPEJ)

Steering Group of the SATURN Centre for Judicial Time Management

(CEPEJ-SATURN)

19th Meeting

Strasbourg, 21 and 22 April 2016

MEETING REPORT

Report prepared by the Secretariat

Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law


1.      Opening of the meeting

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 19th meeting in Strasbourg on 21 and 22 April 2016. The agenda appears in Appendix I and the list of participants in Appendix II to this report.

2.      Appointment of the Chair of CEPEJ-SATURN for 2016-2017

2.      Mr Jacques Bühler (Switzerland) was appointed Chair of the Group for 2016 and 2017.

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

3.      The members and external participants were each, in turn, given the opportunity to introduce themselves and state what they expected from the meeting.

4.      Recent European Court of Human Rights case-law with regard to the reasonable time criterion and possible follow-up by the CEPEJ

4.      The representative of the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights gave a presentation of the statistics (see Appendix) relating to the activity of the Court, focusing, in particular, on decisions relating to the excessive length of civil and criminal proceedings, of which there had been 104 in 2015 (around 12% of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights). These decisions involved both violation and non-violation findings. The Registry pointed out, on the one hand, that a number of cases had been found to be inadmissible or struck off the list and, on the other hand, that the European Court of Human Rights was increasingly seeking alternative solutions to judgments, in particular amicable settlements and unilateral declarations. Unilateral declarations were made following the refusal of an amicable settlement by the applicant: the government recognised the violation and offered damages equivalent to the amount that would have been decided by the Court. Such declarations were not subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, unless the government failed to comply with its declaration.

5.      The Registry also drew attention to the impact of the introduction of domestic remedies and pilot judgments on the Court’s activity. Whereas, in past years, the number of complaints relating to the length of proceedings had been around 40% of the total number of cases, in 2015 they amounted to just 3%. The fact that there were no pilot proceedings in respect of Greece and Hungary explained why these two countries had been the subject of numerous judgments.

6.      Mr Giacomo OBERTO (Italy) mentioned the possibility of adding a column in the statistics table relating to impartial and independent courts. The proposal would be forwarded to the relevant department of the Court.

7.      Mr Jon T JOHNSEN (Norway) explained that there could be several violations in the same case, relating to other provisions of the Convention. If all the violations were counted, they could greatly exceed the stated figure of 823.

8.      The Chair and the Registry were in agreement that there had been no significant change in the case-law of the Court with regard to excessive length of proceedings.

Update of the Calvez/Régis report

9.      In the Calvez/Régis report on the length of proceedings based on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, three types of cases were identified:

·       Priority cases – cases of special importance for the applicant, for example those relating to police violence, cases where the person had lost his livelihood or child custody cases;

·       Complex cases – numerous parties or considerable volume of evidence involved or complexity of the facts;

·       Normal cases – neither priority nor complex. The Court carried out an in-depth examination of the length of the proceedings if they had lasted more than two years.

10.    An update of this report was necessary as it had last been revised in 2012.

11.    The Group instructed the Secretariat of the CEPEJ to contact the scientific expert, Mr Regis, with a view to updating the report and including, in particular, the pilot judgments delivered since the last version.

5.      Towards European Timeframes for Judicial Proceedings – Implementation Guide

12.    The Chair reminded participants that the work concerning the definition of European standards on timeframes for judicial proceedings had been launched following a request by the European Court of Human Rights.

13.    Mr Marco FABRI (Italy), scientific expert, explained the process that had led to the drafting of the Guide and, in particular, that a preparatory study had been carried out since 2013 based on the work of the SATURN Group, the Calvez/Régis report, the CEPEJ’s evaluation exercise and a questionnaire aimed at the national correspondents and the pilot courts of the CEPEJ. This study had been used to set flexible and realistic standard timeframes based on reliable data, using a “progressive steps” and not a “top-down” approach. The standard timeframes had been named A-B-C following lengthy discussion within the Group; they reflected a variety of situations within the Member States and within national judicial systems themselves.

14.    Mr Noel RUBOTHAM (Ireland) said the draft document on standard timeframes was a very commendable initiative of the CEPEJ, and welcomed Mr Marco FABRI’s commitment to the work. He added that every standard timeframe had to be realistic and attainable, in accordance with indicators which commanded a consensus among the Member States. He noted in this regard that the levels of response from the national correspondents and the pilot courts consulted (55% and 42% respectively) on the relevance of the standard timeframes meant that there could be no confirmation that a consensus had been reached. This observation applied mainly to Timeframe A (75% to be processed within 12 months) for civil cases. Mr RUBOTHAM underlined that, as there was no consensus, it was necessary to set these timeframes in a realistic manner. The timeframe agreed was much shorter than that suggested in the majority of the responses to the questionnaires and also in the European Court of Human Rights case-law (Calvez and Régis report).

Standard timeframes with regard to criminal cases drew no distinction between minor offences and more serious offences. There had to be a procedural balance between the need to administer justice and the need to guarantee the fairness of the proceedings, even for a simple criminal case (for example, shoplifting). The person concerned might suffer from the consequences of such a case at a personal and professional level, and must have the right to full disclosure of the facts, which could be used to build their defence.

In addition, Mr RUBOTHAM raised the question whether a buffer zone of 5% of cases which could not be processed within the timeframes stated in the Guide should be set. The CEPEJ should be given every opportunity to examine the reasoning underlying this work. Timeframe A needed to be reviewed before the Guide, and the preparatory study, were presented at the plenary meeting.

15.    Replying to the questions asked by Mr RUBOTHAM, Mr FABRI complimented him on going into the matter so thoroughly. He agreed, as a researcher, that it would be far more interesting to collect more data. However, one could but work with the resources available. It was possible to increase the number of participants in the evaluation work. The timeframes were only standards to be attained; what about courts that managed to achieve a better result than the targets indicated in the timeframes? Should they be designated by A+ or B+? The 2014 report was based not solely on the survey carried out, but also on extensive legal writings, the Calvez report and the report on European judicial systems, as well as other reports, in particular from the United States. The objective was to end up with a standard Timeframe A.


16.    The Chair proposed to Mr FABRI that he should also express his views on the 5% buffer zone. Mr FABRI said he had based his opinion on the debate that had taken place in the United States. The buffer zone was not in the surveys that had been distributed. He believed that 5% was plausible, at least for the first stage of proceedings. He added that there were many courts which exceeded the standard specified for Timeframes C. He considered this 5% to be an indicator which was consistent with the European situation.

17.    Mr Francesco DEPASQUALE (Malta) raised the question whether the European Union might be called upon to reach a wider audience and obtain a higher level of response. He pointed out that it would be worth further examining the issue of how certain States managed to attain Timeframe A and what resources were available to them, particularly in terms of manpower.

18.    Mr Giacomo OBERTO expressed satisfaction with the document and endorsed the idea of involving the European Union, which was also working on judicial timeframes. It would also be beneficial to involve national legislators to the extent that procedural rules depended on them. He considered it useful to link the timeframes to a specific category of case, and it should not be forgotten that the work with the pilot courts took place on the basis of these guidelines. Regarding the 5%, from their discussions he believed that it was completely reasonable for complex cases. This would naturally also depend on the nature of the case, as some cases could overrun (for example, inheritance, bankruptcy, compulsory liquidation).

19.    Mr Gerasimos FOURLANOS (Greece) believed that the twelve-month timeframe required more judges and financing, whereas in Greece, given the circumstances, this was impossible, especially because no penalties were imposed for failing to comply with this timeframe. Furthermore, when comparing simple cases with complex cases, could a specific category be envisaged for which Timeframe A would be enforced?

20.    Mr Jon T JOHNSEN highlighted that it was important for the Group not only to reach a consensus on the timeframes, but also to consider means of enabling the courts to achieve them. It was very important that the proposed timeframes be tested within the pilot courts.

21.    Mrs Ivana BORZOVA (Czech Republic) agreed with this observation and considered that, as had been done for other SATURN documents, it would be useful to work on comments and examples of good practice received from the pilot courts.

22.    The Secretariat indicated that the CEPEJ’s aim was to give policy-makers the tools to improve their judicial system: it should be mentioned that the Guide fell within this objective, as it aimed to define the objectives to be attained with regard to reasonable timeframes, without there being any intention to penalise any failure to meet these objectives.

23.    A long discussion then took place on whether the timeframes should be revised and made less restrictive, in particular with regard to Timeframes A which would be replaced by Timeframes B. This proposal was in the end rejected; however, the members agreed on inserting a clarification in the Guide that courts, in order to operate most effectively, generally required adequate human and material resources, an appropriate procedural framework and effective case management practices.

24.    The members also agreed that, within the process of achieving the timeframes, countries might need to define different timeframes which reflected realistic targets that could be met in the short term, while adopting the structure specified within the timeframes with the ultimate aim of achieving the timeframe that had been set.

25.    It was agreed that the Guide would be revised on the basis of these observations. The scientific expert, Marco FABRI, would propose amendments accordingly.

26.    A discussion also took place on the methodology proposed in the Guide for achieving the timeframes, which could be summarised in terms of three criteria:

1) diagnosis of the situation;

2) definition of the timeframe to be achieved;

3) monitoring.

27.    Following the comment made earlier on the need to collect examples of good practices so as to achieve the timeframes, the Chair noted that these already existed, as did analytical tools. However, it would be useful to prepare a publication encompassing all the SATURN instruments and explaining their interdependence, including the document on timeframes, which would fit in perfectly.

28.    It was also suggested that the concepts of priority case and complex case should be addressed in more depth in the Calvez/Régis report, notably with regard to criteria enabling these types of cases to be identified. The Secretariat was instructed to follow up this proposal.

29.    Following the discussion, it was agreed that:

·       Mr Fabri would very shortly provide the Secretariat with a table on caseloads, which would be tested by the Chair and then forwarded to the Secretariat, with an accompanying draft letter to the pilot courts;

·       the Secretariat would update the French version based on the additions to the English version, and would send both versions of the Guide in English and in French, with the table attached, to the pilot courts, with the aim of receiving feedback before the plenary meeting planned for 21 September 2016;

·       the standard timeframes would be tested with the pilot courts at the meeting on 21 September;

·       the Secretariat would consult the CCJE and the European Association of Judges (through Giacomo OBERTO) as to the relevance of the proposed Timeframes A, B and C;

·       the Secretariat would include an item on the agenda for the next meeting of the SATURN Group relating to complex cases and the work the Group might do on this matter.

6.      Directions for the study on judicial timeframes within courts of 2nd and 3rd instance (2014 data)

30.    The Secretariat informed the members that, as from this year, the report on European judicial systems would not only include data relating to judicial timeframes at first instance, but also at second instance and at the level of the supreme court. They informed the Group members that the report would be published in a different format. The paper version would focus on four areas:

-     budgetary resources,

-     organisation of the courts and users,

-     justice personnel,

-     performance of the courts.

In addition, special attention would be paid to the impact of information and communication technology on reducing the workload in the courts, which would be the subject of a thematic report. Lastly, a dynamic database would be available on the Internet, which would enable specific search criteria to be used for data retrieval purposes.

31.    The Secretariat proposed waiting until the plenary meeting of the CEPEJ at the end of June 2016 to see what would be accessible on the database with regard to judicial timeframes. The CEPEJ statistician had been instructed to compile information on the data available with regard to courts of second and last instance. The tables prepared by the Secretariat would be re-examined by the Group at the meeting in September 2016 to decide whether it would be appropriate to continue updating a specific publication.


7.      Updating of Recommendation Rec(86)12 concerning measures to prevent and reduce the excessive workload in the courts

32.    The Group regretted that the Steering Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ), which had agreed in principle to look into updating Rec 86(12), had decided to defer its action in this area.

8.      Revision of the definitions used in the CEPEJ tools for judicial case management (caseload, backlog, EUGMONT indicators, etc.)

33.    The Chair proposed going through the document containing the definitions and then sending it to the other Working Groups of the CEPEJ.

34.    This exercise would be put on the agenda for the next meeting. The Secretariat was instructed to include the members’ comments in the English version, closely read through it again to ensure that the definitions given were relevant and ensure that it was fully consistent with the French version.

9.      CEPEJ co-operation programmes

a) Morocco

35.    The Secretariat informed the participants that a new CEPEJ/MOROCCO bilateral programme had just begun, with two areas of work: on the one hand, supporting the Conseil Supérieur du Pouvoir Judiciaire (High Judicial Council) and, on the other hand, implementing the CEPEJ tools in Morocco. Mr EROUIHANE (Morocco) confirmed that the Moroccan authorities were willing to co‑operate with the CEPEJ, and emphasised the importance of the activities scheduled within the scope of the 2016-2017 action plan.

36.    The participants were informed about the experience of the Fez Court of Appeal and the setting of internal objectives within this Court, which could be monitored using internal resources without requesting other resources from the ministry. In particular, the on-going collection of data on information and communication technology, the assessment of the data and the identification of deficiencies down the line were highlighted. This work also enabled the status of hearings to be monitored using standardised scorecards for all the chambers of the Court.

37.    Monitoring of timeframes by the President was carried out using these forms. The activity of the courts and the various stages of proceedings were also monitored using forms and scorecards.

38.    The First President of the Court explained that the success of the experience was linked to the involvement of all Court actors in the process of determining average timeframes and internal objectives in general. Concerning the establishment of an average timeframe, the best performance had become the benchmark for determining an internal objective. The First President said this experience showed that it was not necessary to develop an IT tool for performance monitoring purposes.

b) Tunisia

39.    The co-operation between the CEPEJ and Tunisia continues with both the Ministry of Justice and the pilot courts, for which two representatives are present. Among the on-going activities, mention is made to the handling of civil cases before trial (mise en état), and to the development of judicial scoreboards to improve the monitoring of court activities. The President of the Court of First Instance of Gabès informed the participants that he begun to implement the CEPEJ experts’ recommendations (in particular, a pre-trial judge has been designated) even before the CEPEJ team visited the court. He also mentioned that the court is suffering from a lack of registrars, and this has a significant impact on the work of the judges.

c) Jordan

40.    The CEPEJ continues to support the Ministry of Justice’s team, which is in charge of developing automated judicial scoreboards and reporting systems both at national level. Some of the CEPEJ indicators are now included in the scoreboards. In addition, there were on-going discussions within the Ministry of Justice in order to restart the co-operation with the CEPEJ pilot courts.

d) Albania

41.    The work of implementing the SATURN guidelines and checklist for judicial time management was continuing in all the country’s courts through the creation of mixed teams consisting of CEPEJ experts and local experts. A major review of the constitution, the judiciary, judges and registrars was currently being carried out.

e) Kosovo*[1]

42.    Kosovo* would benefit from a co-operation programme financed by the European Union, which should begin very shortly and would follow a court coaching activity on the SATURN tools implemented in 2015-2016 with the Pristina court.

f) Croatia

43.    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 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. The CEPEJ experts had drawn up an action plan at the beginning of 2015, including many recommendations based on the SATURN guidelines, while also recommending the introduction of mediation and conciliation.

g) Azerbaijan and Republic of Moldova

44.    The programme had started in June 2015 and was aimed at implementing the CEPEJ tools in courts. Current issues concerned effective court management and the usefulness, in this connection, of judicial statistics gathered using new technology. The projects had been well developed and had met with a good reception from the local authorities. The representative of Azerbaijan said that the judicial system was going through a new phase with the CEPEJ; there had been growth in the number of lawyers, an increase in the budget of the courts and improvement in the judicial infrastructure. Judicial reforms were an on-going process. The co-operation with the CEPEJ had allowed an improvement in the national judicial system, by collecting data that could result in improved management of judicial timeframes, which did not pose any particular problem. The results obtained within the pilot courts would be disseminated to the other courts.

10.    CEPEJ coaching programmes

a) Malta

45.    Mr Francesco DE PASQUALE (Malta) proposed to the CEPEJ that it provide assistance to establish judicial timeframes within the scope of the court coaching programme. He would shortly send more specific proposals to the Group.

b) Greece (Thessalonica)

46.    The Chair announced that, on 18 April 2016, the Secretariat of the CEPEJ had received comments from the Thessalonica Administrative Court of First Instance relating to the report on the implementation of the SATURN guidelines on judicial time management within this court. The court reported a major reduction of the backlog from 60,000 to 15,000 cases, which was now enabling the Court to process the 2008 cases.

47.    Mr Gerasimos FOURLANOS (Greece) said that the timeframes problem was not specifically attributable to the courts, but instead followed from the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and, in particular, practice: the State systematically applied any decision ordering it to pay a sum of money. The illegal immigration problem had placed a further burden on the court. He believed that the situation in this court was particularly critical and that it was not a representative example of the other administrative courts.

48.    The Chair asked for members’ views concerning the list of measures recommended in the aforementioned report. Mr Giacomo Oberto (Italy) thought it was necessary to raise the awareness of the administrative authorities with regard to the backlog. The Chair also pointed out that, in Albania, recommendations had been made by the CEPEJ to the Justice Ministry to change existing practices, whereby public servants were penalised if they did not systematically implement court decisions.

49.    Following the discussion, it was decided that the Chair would include the court’s comments in the report and prepare a table showing the follow-up given to the recommendations. The Secretariat would be instructed to send these documents to the Administrative Court and would examine whether a further visit by the CEPEJ team to this court was appropriate. It would also be possible to take stock with the court at the meeting of the CEPEJ pilot courts on 21 September 2016. Lastly, the Chair asked the members to send him, if they so wished, any suggestions regarding the recommendations to be sent to the court.

c) France (Avignon): establishment of a predictor of processing time

50.    The Chair described the work in progress with the Regional Court of Avignon with a view to informing litigants of an anticipated processing time for family law cases. He asked whether the members of the Committee could propose good practices with regard to both determining an anticipated case processing time and communicating with litigants. He referred in this connection to the experience of the Geneva Administrative Court, which published an anticipated case processing timeframe (determined after deducting 20% of the fastest cases and 20% of the slowest cases) on its website. All members then stated their views in turn. Most of the participants stressed the importance of putting in place procedures for the preparation of cases for trial or a timetable for court proceedings (Malta, Czech Republic) with the involvement of a registrar (Ireland) to better determine the stages of the proceedings and the contribution of the parties and thus arrive at a more precise forecast of the length of the proceedings. Mr JOHNSEN also mentioned that in the “Guide on implementing SATURN guidelines – comments and implementation examples” reference was made to a court that published the timeframes for proceedings on its website.

11.    Other business

51.    The Group instructed the Secretariat to convey its warm regards to Mr Irakli ADEISHVILI, a former member of the Group.


APPENDIX I

AGENDA / ORDRE DU JOUR

1.       Opening of the meeting / Ouverture de la réunion

2.      Appointment of the Chairperson of the CEPEJ-SATURN for 2016-2017 / Désignation du Président du CEPEJ-SATURN pour 2016-2017

3.      Information by the President, members of the Group and the Secretariat / Information du Président, des membres du Groupe et du Secrétariat

4.      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

a)     Recent case law of the ECtHR (oral information by Jacques Bühler) / Jurisprudence récente de la CrEDH (information orale par Jacques Bühler)

b)    Update of the Calvez / Regis report / Mise à jour du rapport Calvez / Régis

c)     Statistics of the ECHR on the volume of cases  with the complaint of excessive delay processing procedures / Statistiques de la CrEDH relative au volume des affaires comportant le grief du délai excessif de traitement des procédures

5.      Towards European timeframes for judicial proceedings - implementation guide / Vers des délais judiciaires européens - Guide de mise en œuvre

a)     Summary of the contents of the study of Marco FABRI / Rappel du contenu de l’étude de Marco FABRI

b)    Review of the new version of the Implementation Guide / Examen de la nouvelle version du Guide de mise en œuvre

c)     Review of the new version of the statistical data collection sheet (Annex of the Implementation Guide) / Examen de la nouvelle version de la feuille de récolte de données statistiques (annexe du guide de mise en œuvre)

d)    Implementation of practical tests of the method in the pilot courts / Mise en œuvre des tests pratiques de la méthode au sein des tribunaux référents

6.      Discussion of directions for the study on judicial delays in the 2nd and 3rd instance (data 2014) / Discussion sur les orientations à donner à l’étude sur les délais judiciaires au sein des tribunaux de 2ème et 3ème instance (données 2014)

7.      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

8.      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.)

a)     Update on the adoption of definitions by the various working groups / Point sur l’adoption des définitions par les différents groupes de travail

b)    Forward planning work / Planification prévisionnelle des travaux

9.      Co-operation programmes / Programmes de coopération

a)     Morocco / Maroc

                              i.         General informations / Point général

                             ii.         Presentation of optimization mechanisms of court proceedings established in the Court of Appeal in Fez / Présentation des mécanismes d’optimisation des délais judiciaires mis en place au sein de la Cour d’appel de Fès

b)    Tunisia / Tunisie

c)     Jordan / Jordanie

d)    Albania / Albanie

e)     Kosovo[2]

f)     Croatia / Croatie

g)    PCF (Azerbaijan / Azerbaïdjan ; Republic of Moldova / République de Moldova)

10.    Court coaching programmes

a)     Malta / Malte

b)    Greece (Thessaloniki) / Grèce (Thessalonique)

c)     France (Avignon) : Discussion on the establishment of a predictor of processing time / Discussion relative à l’établissement d’un indicateur prévisionnel de délai de traitement

11.    Other items / Divers

a)     Miscellaneous points / Divers

b)    SATURN meeting on 20 and 22 September 2016 ; meeting of the pilot courts of 21 September, 2016 meeting on co-operation of 23 September 2016 / Réunion SATURN des 20 et 22 septembre 2016, réunion des tribunaux référents du 21 septembre 2016 et réunion en matière de coopération du 23 septembre 2016

 


APPENDIX II

List of Participants / Liste des participants

MEMBERS / MEMBRES

Ivana BORZOVÁ, Head of Department of Civil Supervision, Ministry of Justice, PRAGUE, CZECH REPUBLIC

Jacques BÜHLER, Secrétaire Général suppléant, Tribunal fédéral suisse, LAUSANNE, SUISSE (Chairman of the Group / Président du Groupe)

Ivan CRNČEC, Assistant Minister of Justice, ZAGREB, CROATIA - Apologised / Excusé

Francesco DEPASQUALE, Magistrate, Legal Advisor to the Director General, Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs, VALLETTA, MALTA

Gerasimos FOURLANOS, Vice-President of the Supreme Civil and Penal Court, ATHENS, GREECE

Giacomo OBERTO, Magistrat, Tribunal de Grande Instance, TURIN, ITALIE

Noel RUBOTHAM, Head of Reform and Development, Courts Service, DUBLIN , IRELAND

           

***

Scientific ExpertS / Experts scientifiques

Marco FABRI, Director, Research Institute on Judicial Systems, National Research Council (IRSIG-CNR), BOLOGNA, ITALY

Jon T. JOHNSEN, Professor in Law, Faculty of law, University of Oslo, OSLO, Norway

***

INVITED STATES / PAYS INVITES

AZERBAIJAN / AZERBAIDJAN

Leyla ZAKIROVA, Senior adviser, Ministry of Justice

Khagani TAGHIYEV, Member, Judicial Legal Council, Chairman of Salyan District Court

Islam ALIYEV, Chairman of the Sumgayit Administrative-Economic Court

Aladdin JAFAROV, Chairman, Baku City Yasamal District Court

Vidadi GASIMOV, Judge of the Sheki Court of Appeal 

Fermayil ZEYNALLI, Judge of the Sumgayit Court of Appeal

JORDAN / JORDANIE

Muntaser AL-MASRI, Legal Researcher, Ministry of Justice

MAROC / MOROCCO

Abderrafi EROUIHANE, Directeur des études de la coopération et de la modernisation, Ministère de la Justice et des Libertés
El Hassan EL GUASSEM, Directeur des Affaires Civiles , Ministère de la Justice et des Libertés
M’Hammed ABDENABAOUI, Directeur des Affaires Pénales et des Grâces, Ministère de la Justice et des Libertés 

Abdelaziz FATHAOUI, Premier Président de la Cour d’Appel de Casablanca 
Karim HARROUCHE, Représentant du Secrétariat Général du Ministère de la Justice et des Libertés

TUNISIA / TUNISIE

Walid BEN ALI, Directeur des statistiques à l'Inspection générale, Ministère de la Justice 

Mohamed Moez LAROUSSI, Président de chambre, Substitut du Président du tribunal de première instance de Tunis

Fathi ARROUM, Président du tribunal de première instance de Gabès

***

OBSERVER / OBSERVATEUR

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

Michel CRAMET, Directeur Délégué à l’Administration Régionale Judiciaire, Cour d'appel de LYON - FRANCE

COUNCIL OF EUROPE / CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS (ECHR) / COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME (CEDH)

Paola TONARELLI-LACORE, Registry of the European Court of Human Rights / Greffe de la Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme

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

E-mail : [email protected]

Stéphane LEYENBERGER, Head of Division, Executive Secretary of the CEPE /Chef de la Division, Secrétaire exécutif de la CEPEJ, Tél: +33(0)3 88 41 34 12, e-mail: [email protected]

Clementina BARBARO, Administrator / Administratrice, Tél: +33 3 90 21 55 04, e-mail: [email protected]

Jean-Pierre GEILLER, Administration and finances / Administration et finances, Tél : +33(0) 3 88 41 22 27, e-mail : [email protected]

Annette SATTEL, Administration and networks / Administration et réseaux, Tél: +33 (0)3 88 41 39 04, e-mail: [email protected]

Ioana VOELKEL, Assistant/Assistante, e-mail: [email protected]  

CEPEJ COOPERATION PROGRAMMES / PROGRAMMES DE COOPERATION DE LA CEPEJ

Leonid ANTOHI, Programme coordinator / Coordinateur de programmes, Tel: +33 (0)3 90 21 49 65, e-mail: [email protected]

Micol EMINENTE, Programme coordinator / Coordinateur de programmes, Tél : +33 (0)3 90 21 59 34, e-mail : [email protected]

Paul MEYER, Programme coordinator / Coordinateur de programmes, Tél : +33 (0)3 90 21 55 22, e-mail : [email protected]

 

TRAINEE / STAGIAIRE

Bouteina BENAMOUR

INTERPRETERS / INTERPRETES

Nicolas GUITTONNEAU

Chloé CHENETIER

Jean-Jacques PEDUSSAUD

Elvin ABBASBEYLI

Chahla AGHALAROVA



[1] * All reference to Kosovo, whether to the territory, institutions or population, in this text shall be understood in full compliance with Resolution 1244 of the United Nations Security Council and without prejudice to the status of Kosovo.

[2] All reference to Kosovo, whether the territory, institutions or population, in this text shall be understood in full compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 and without prejudice to the status of Kosovo  / Toute référence au Kosovo dans ce texte, qu'il s'agisse du territoire, des institutions ou la population, doit se comprendre en pleine conformité avec la Résolution 1244 du Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies et sans préjudice du statut du Kosovo .