CEPEJ(2008)15

EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE

(CEPEJ)

2008 Activity Report

adopted by the CEPEJ at its 13^th plenary meeting (10 and 11 June 2009)

[and approved by the Ministers’ Deputies at their 1068^th meeting (7 October 2009)]

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 13^th Plenary Meeting (10 and 11 June 2009) 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 2008

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 were not represented on the CEPEJ during the year. Among those states enjoying observer status with the Council of Europe, Japan participated in a plenary meeting.

3.     Mr Fausto DE SANTIS (Italy) was President of the CEPEJ. Mr John STACEY (United Kingdom), Vice-President, Ms Ivana BORZOVA (Czech Republic) and Ms Elsa GARCIA MALTRAS de BLAS (Spain) were also members of the Bureau.

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

5.     The European Union is regularly invited to be represented at the CEPEJ meetings, through the Council of the European Union and the European Commission.

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 11^th plenary meeting on 2 and 3 July and its 12^th plenary meeting on 10 and 11 December in Strasbourg.

8.     The Bureau of the CEPEJ met in Strasbourg on 25 January and in Catania (Italy) on 23 October.

9.     The Working Group for the Evaluation of Judicial Systems (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL) met in Strasbourg on 18 and 19 March, 6 and 7 May and 6 and 7 November, with Mr Jean-Paul JEAN (France) in the chair. The steering group (Groupe de Pilotage) of the SATURN Centre for Judicial Time Management met in Strasbourg on 15 and 16 May and 9 and 10 October, with Mr Jacques BÜHLER (Switzerland) in the chair. The Working Group on the Quality of Justice (CEPEJ-GT-QUAL) met in Strasbourg on 6 and 7 March and 25 and 26 September, with Mr François PAYCHERE (Switzerland) in the chair.

10.  The third plenary meeting of the Network of national correspondents for judicial statistics met in Strasbourg on 5 May. The third plenary meeting of the CEPEJ’s network of pilot courts was held in Catania (Italy) on 24 October.

2.   ACTIVITIES AND ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE CEPEJ IN 2008

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

§  publishing the evaluation report “European judicial systems – 2008 Edition",

§  developing tools to improve knowledge of the timeframes in judicial procedures (SATURN Centre),

§  promoting the quality of justice,

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

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

2.1.1 Evaluating the functioning of European judicial systems

Publication of the 2008 Report

15.  In the context of the 2006 – 2008 round of evaluations of judicial systems the CEPEJ adopted its report “European Judicial Systems – 2008 Edition” at its 11^th plenary meeting (Strasbourg, July), presented to the Committee of Ministers at its 1037^th meeting (8 October) and made public on the same date at a press conference held at the Bureau of the Council of Europe in Paris.

16.  The CEPEJ had entrusted the task of drafting the report to its Working Group (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL). The Secretariat had designated Ms Marta ZIMOLAG (Poland) as scientific expert with the task of processing the national data submitted by the member states and drawing up the preliminary draft report, in co-operation with the Secretariat of the CEPEJ and with the further assistance of two special counsellors made available by the Ministries of Justice of France and the Netherlands. The work of collecting and processing the data was facilitated by the development of an electronic questionnaire. The experts worked closely with the national correspondents responsible for co-ordinating the states’ responses to the Evaluation Table.

17.  The Report sets out the results of an investigation carried out in 45 European states on the basis of data for 2006. The unmatched scientific method developed by the CEPEJ, which makes it possible to collect and process thousands of data on justice systems, has been validated in numerous fora. That experience has enabled the CEPEJ to present coherent, stabilised and accountable data. This evaluation system is unique owing to the number of subjects and countries which it covers. It seeks to develop gradually a body of key quantitative and qualitative data (European indicators of justice) that can be collected and processed on a regular basis and in a homogeneous manner in all European states and can provide common indicators to gauge the quality and efficiency of the work of the courts, including the evaluation of the evolution of the situation of a system over time.

18.  This report offers public policy-makers, legal practitioners and researchers comparative tables and relevant comments on the essential areas to enable them to understand the functioning of judicial systems, grasp the main trends, identify the problems and orient public policies with the aim of improving the quality, fairness and efficiency of the public service of justice. It is a solid tool for reinforcing mutual understanding between the judicial systems and mutual confidence between legal practitioners.

19.  The Report was published on the CEPEJ’s website, with an overview and the complete individual responses of the states. The number of hits received by the CEPEJ’s internet site increased considerably when the Report was placed on line.[5] It was also distributed to the competent authorities of the member states (Ministries of Justice, Supreme Courts, Judicial Training Colleges), the competent bodies of the Council of Europe and the international and European organisations concerned. The Report received wide coverage in important European media.

20.  The Report gave rise to great interest in the Committee of Ministers, the competent national administrations and the judicial authorities of the member states. Several states indicated that the Report was the subject of discussion in the media (notably Andorra, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Czech Republic, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Switzerland) and in political bodies such as the Ministry of Justice, the Parliament, political parties or legal bodies such as the councils of justice or professional associations (notably Andorra, Bosnia and Herzegovina, France, Italy, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands, Switzerland, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and Turkey). Some states also indicated that the Report was directly studied in the context of judicial reforms (notably Italy, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands and “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”). In several states the Report was translated, in whole or in part.

21.  The publication of the Report is merely the first step in an evaluation process. The second step is to draw useful lessons and conclusions from that information in order to offer the states practical tools for the development of public justice policies. For that reason, at the end of the year the CEPEJ embarked on an in-depth analysis of the Report, which should be completed in 2009.

22.  In contrast, no state was able to update the body of key data defined by the CEPEJ (document CEPEJ(2007)27), on the basis of the information relating to 2007. It appears that such an intermediate exercise, between two rounds of evaluation, would be too much extra work for the administrations concerned.

Implementation of a pilot peer review co-operation process

23.  On a proposal from the French delegation, the CEPEJ set up a pilot peer review co-operation process on judicial statistics. Three evaluation visits were undertaken by CEPEJ experts in Bosnia and Herzegovina, France and Poland. 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 should make it possible to exchange experiences between national judicial statistics systems, share best practices, identify common indicators and transfer knowledge. It also seeks to improve and help ensure the transparency and reliability of the CEPEJ’s evaluation process. Encouraged by the positive experience of the pilot process, the CEPEJ has decided to continue this exercise.

Adoption of the CEPEJ Guidelines on Judicial Statistics

24.  The CEPEJ adopted the “CEPEJ Guidelines on Judicial Statistics (GOJUST)”[6] drawn up by the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL to promote quality, transparency, accountability and accessibility of judicial statistics collected and processed in the member states and to facilitate comparison of data between European states.

Co-operation with the European Union

25.  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 experts took part in various meetings of the working sub-groups of the Forum and also in European Commission meetings on the evaluation of the functioning of criminal justice.

26.  The CEPEJ confirmed that it was prepared to co-operate with the European Union, in particular in the evaluation of judicial systems, emphasising that it was essential to reinforce the synergies between its own firmly developed process and the specific needs of the European Union to strengthen mutual confidence between justice systems.

 

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

27.  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.

28.  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. The information collected was processed in order to provide the basis for the adoption by the CEPEJ of the “SATURN Guidelines for judicial time management"[7].

29.  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

30.  La CEPEJ adopted the "Checklist for promoting the quality of justice and the courts"[8] prepared by its Working Group (CEPEJ-GT-QUAL). This Scheme is aimed at policy makers and judicial practitioners responsible for the administration of justice to improve the legislation, policies and practices aimed at raising the quality of the judicial systems, at national system, court and individual judge levels. It should be noted that this tool and Opinion no. 11 (2008) on the quality of judicial decisions adopted by the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) are complementary.

31.  The CEPEJ-GT-QUAL also initiated work in the following areas:

§  a report including a structured summary of quality systems in a sample of member states;

§  a report on the contractualisation of judicial process;

§  a handbook making it possible to develop satisfaction surveys of professionals and court users.

2.2 Developing exchanges with networks of professionals

32.  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

33.  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 3^rd plenary meeting was held at Catania (Italy), at the invitation of the Catania Court of Appeal, on 24 October in the framework of European Justice Day. Only those courts which had been active within the network over the preceding year were invited – a total of 29 member states were represented. In order to support the CEPEJ’s work programme, the network organised its own activities around those of its working groups on evaluation, quality and length of proceedings. A work schedule for 2009 was adopted.[9] The conclusions reached at the meeting also emphasised the need for even further investment by the pilot courts in the work of the CEPEJ, in particular in disseminating its work.

34.  At the initiative of the Catania Court of Appeal, a meeting of a working group of the network was held on 25 October. This working group consisted of courts of second instance. The purpose of the meeting was to identify issues of common interest specific to those courts. The Catania Court of Appeal proposed that exchanges of views specific to courts of second instance should be placed on a permanent footing.

2.2.2 Network of national correspondents

35.  The third plenary meeting of national correspondents responsible for judicial statistics (Strasbourg, 5 May) marked an important point in the evaluation of judicial systems, particularly as regards validation of the data and the way in which they were used in the Report (see para. 15 to 22 above).

2.3 Supporting member states in their judicial reforms

36.  No targeted co-operation activity was organised by the CEPEJ during the year[10].

37.  However, the CEPEJ was kept informed about developments in the work between the Rome and Paris Courts of Appeal towards a comparative study of their statistical data.

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

Within the Council of Europe

38.  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).

In cooperation with the European Union[11]

39.  The flagship event of the 6^th European Day of Justice, organised jointly by the Council of Europe and the European Commission, was held in Catania (Italy) on 24 October at the invitation of the Court of Appeal and the Italian Ministry of Justice. On the occasion of this European Day, events designed to inform the public about the judicial systems were held in some 15 member states.

40.  For its third edition, the “Crystal Scales of Justice”, organised jointly by the Council of Europe and the European Commission, was awarded in the framework of the European Day of Justice at Catania. The Jury composed of 11 eminent European lawyers drew up a list of winners from among the 38 entries from 15 European states, a record number which proves the interest generated by that event. The Prize was awarded to ''Her Majesty’s Courts Service'' of the United Kingdom for the initiative “The small claims mediation service”, which provides rapid, simple and free mediation for the recovery of small debts. Three other projects received a special mention: the Barreau de Paris (France) for the "Bus Barreau de Paris Solidarité"; the Court of Milan (Italy) for the computerised civil lawsuits office; and the Ministry of Justice of Turkey for the National Judiciary Informatics System (UYAP).

41.  In addition, 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 working group of the Council of the European Union. 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.

With other international partners and certain specific countries

42.  The CEPEJ was also represented by several of its members or by the Secretariat at 20 or so events where issues of direct relevance to the functioning of the justice system were addressed. These included:

§  UNIDEM Seminar organised by the Venice Commission on the length of proceedings, Trieste (Italy), 25-28 February;

§  conference on the Rule of Law (Hague Institute for Internationalisation and Law), The Hague, (Netherlands), 17 – 18 March;

§  seminar organised by the Inter-university Centre of Dubrovnik (Croatia) (19-23 May 2008) on “The Foundations of an accountable, accessible and efficient judiciary”;

§  launch of the Court excellence Forum, Sydney (Australia), 20-23 September;

§  seminar of the World Bank, Sofia (Bulgaria), 7 October;

§  Working Group of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary, Copenhagen (Denmark), 9-10 October;

§  colloquy on "Non-professional judges and economic justice", Faculty of Law, Strasbourg (France), 10 October;

§  seminar at the Ministry of Justice, The Hague (Netherlands), 27 October;

§  regional seminar (Croatia, Serbia) organised by the World Bank on 25 November and 15 December (videoconferences).

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

Means of communication

44.  Two issues of the "CEPEJ Newsletter" were published, sent electronically to more than 1500 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.

45.  The CEPEJ’s internet site has met with increasing success, culminating in a total of 48000 pages viewed in November. The site is now a standard reference within the European judicial community.