Strasbourg, 15 October 2009

CEPEJ-GT-EVAL(2009)6

EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE

(CEPEJ)

WORKING GROUP ON THE EVALUATION OF JUDICIAL SYSTEMS

(CEPEJ-GT-EVAL)

13th meeting, 2 October 2009

MEETING REPORT

Report prepared by the Secretariat

Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs

The CEPEJ-GT-EVAL:

§  invited its members to forward to the Secretariat by 30 October 2009 their comments on the draft study on the organisation of court clerk offices presented by the ACIPS, and agreed to ask the researchers to revise their work on the basis of these comments and to make contact with the EUR;

§  agreed to supply a password and access to the CEPEJ's electronic questionnaire to all of its members, to enable them to follow the progress of the correspondents' work, test the questions and facilitate the progress of the process;

§  emphasised that the process of peer evaluation of statistical data should be continued and stepped up in order to increase the credibility and relevance of the evaluation process;

§  invited all national correspondents to indicate the characteristics of data collection in their country, as well as the main difficulties to which the experts should pay particular attention when conducting their analysis;

§  agreed that the evaluation report should be based on three pillars: a reliable database, statistics accompanied by comments enabling them to be interpreted properly, and identification of major trends;

§  supported in principle the temporary recruitment of an expert statistician for the processing of data during the first half of 2010, and recommended that the Council of Europe consider the possibility of the permanent addition of an expert statistician to the Secretariat of the CEPEJ;

§  agreed that the collection, processing and analysis of data to be used for the evaluation of European judicial systems should remain an institutional exercise carried out by an intergovernmental body, namely the CEPEJ, and led by the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL, in association with the CEPEJ's other working groups (SATURN and GT-QUAL); agreed not to give a positive reply to the partnership proposal made by the TISCO project from the University of Tilburg, while remaining open to subsequent co-operation during the in-depth analysis of the next report;

§  proposed a timetable for the preparation of the draft report in 2010;

§  prepared for the forthcoming visit to the Russian Federation for peer evaluation of judicial statistics, and emphasised the usefulness of the organisation in 2010 of a similar exercise with the countries of northern Europe;

§  indicated its agreement with the amendments proposed by the SATURN Centre's Steering Group to the appendix to the GOJUST guidelines;

§  agreed to test the use of the judicial system performance indicators proposed by Adis HODZIC in the context of the next evaluation report;

§  prepared for the study session (9 December 2009) on measuring the performance of judicial systems, invited the experts concerned to draw up a preliminary memorandum which could be distributed to CEPEJ members before the meeting and suggested that the CEPEJ's Internet Forum be used to start the discussion.


1.     The Working Group on the Evaluation of Judicial Systems (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL) of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) held its 13th meeting on 2 October 2009 at the Council of Europe's Paris Office, with Mr Jean-Paul JEAN (France) in the chair.

2.    The agenda and list of participants in the meeting are at Appendices I and II to this report respectively.

  1. Information from the Secretariat

3.    The Secretariat informed the Group of the reorganisation of the Justice Division, where Stéphane LEYENBERGER had taken up the duties of acting Head of Division following the appointment of Anna CAPELLO-BRILLAT to another department.  This did not affect the Secretariat of the CEPEJ.

  1. Information about the in-depth studies based on the 2008 Evaluation Report

4.    The draft recently forwarded by the ACIPS (Alumni of the Centre for Interdisciplinary Postgraduate Studies), an association in Bosnia and Herzegovina, on the subject of the organisation of court clerk offices did not, after a rapid reading, seem fully to accord with the group's expectations.  The researchers seemed to have worked in co-operation with neither the EUR nor the experts from the GT-EVAL designated to follow their work.

5.    Members of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL were asked to forward their comments to the Secretariat by 30 October 2009.  The researchers would be asked to revise their work on the basis of these comments and to make contact with the EUR.

6.    The Secretariat informed the group that the study of lawyers’ role in judicial proceedings was being written under the responsibility of the CCBE, in co-operation with the Free University of Brussels.  A supplementary questionnaire had been prepared by the researchers and sent by the Secretariat to the national correspondents of the states which were not members of the European Union.

7.    Furthermore, MEDEL was now working on the study on the subject of "single judges and panels of judges".

  1. 2008-2010 evaluation process

8.    The electronic questionnaire had been accessible to national correspondents since mid-September 2009.  The Secretariat should continue its contacts with the states which had not yet confirmed the name of their correspondent in order to ensure that all states took part in the process.

9.    It was agreed to supply a password and access to all CEPEJ-GT-EVAL members, to enable them to follow the progress of the correspondents' work, test the questions and facilitate the progress of the process.

10.  The experts emphasised that the current crisis made the exercise particularly relevant, particularly in the context of tight budget discussions in states.

11.  The importance of this third evaluation cycle was emphasised: it should enable initial series of statistics to be drawn up; it was eagerly awaited in the states.  Particular attention needed to be paid to the quality of the data and to the precision with which they were analysed.  The process of peer evaluation of statistical data should be continued and stepped up in order to increase the credibility and relevance of the process.

12.  It was pointed out that statistical data were always subject to certain limits inherent to the system, although they were an absolutely necessary instrument of public policy.  This should not be forgotten during analysis of these data.  In this respect, it was proposed that all national correspondents be asked to indicate in a few lines the characteristics of data collection in their country, as well as the main difficulties to which the experts should pay particular attention when conducting their analysis.

13.  It was agreed that the evaluation report should be based on three pillars: a reliable database, statistics accompanied by comments enabling them to be interpreted properly, and identification of major trends.

14.  The group supported in principle the temporary recruitment of an expert statistician for the processing of data during the first half of 2010.  It nevertheless emphasised that statistics processing and analysis would henceforth become permanent in the CEPEJ, both for the regular exercise of evaluating the functioning of the courts and for the development of the permanent observatory of judicial timeframes.  They also recommended that the Council of Europe consider the possibility of the permanent addition of an expert statistician to the Secretariat of the CEPEJ.

15.  The group studied the proposal for a data analysis partnership made by the TISCO project from the University of Tilburg (Netherlands), relayed by Pim ALBERS.  While appreciating this research team's interest in the work of the CEPEJ, the group agreed that the collection, processing and analysis of data to be used for the evaluation of European judicial systems should remain an institutional exercise carried out by an intergovernmental body, namely the CEPEJ, and led by the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL, in association with the CEPEJ's other working groups (SATURN and GT-QUAL).  It nevertheless remained open to subsequent co-operation with TISCO during the in-depth analysis of the next report, on one or more specific subjects to be determined.

16.  The CEPEJ-GT-EVAL proposed the following timetable for 2010:

§  a first meeting of the group early in March;

§  a meeting with the national correspondents early in May, followed by a full two-day meeting of the group;

§  a meeting for rereading the report (which might be limited to one or two members of the group) early in June, before the draft report was sent to members of the plenary group with a view to the meeting of 30 June/1 July 2010.

  1. Peer evaluation co-operation process

17.  The next evaluation visit was planned to the Russian Federation on 29 and 30 October 2009.  The experts wished to hold discussions keeping very close to the evaluation scheme, recording the difficulties which had appeared for Russia at the time of the previous exercise. The group proposed that the Russian data from the previous two exercises be extracted, in order to compare the differences in the replies to the same questions so as to identify potential deficiencies.

18.  The discussions would, in particular, have to be based on the GOJUST guidelines on judicial statistics, especially numbers 3 to 8.  The group instructed the Secretariat to send these guidelines in advance to the Russian parties involved, telling them that the discussions should, in particular, be based on this document.

19.  Georg Stawa further suggested use of the court performance indicators proposed by Adis Hodzic, so as to include the 2006 data from the Russian Federation and to compare these with Austria, Poland, France, Finland, Spain and Ukraine.

20.  Furthermore, the Russian authorities could be invited to provide certain key judicial statistics relating to an individual court and an appeal court district, so as to be able to compare these to the national data.

21.  The CEPEJ-GT-EVAL urged that a peer evaluation exercise be carried out in 2010 relating to the countries of northern Europe, if possible as a group.

  1. CEPEJ guidelines on judicial statistics – GOJUST

22.  The CEPEJ-GT-EVAL indicated its agreement with the amendments proposed to the appendix to the GOJUST guidelines (joint appendix with the Guidelines for judicial time management) by the SATURN Centre's Steering Group following the 4th plenary meeting of pilot courts, so as to take account of those courts' comments.

  1. Definition of CEPEJ court performance indicators

23.  The CEPEJ-GT-EVAL agreed to test the use of the judicial system performance indicators proposed by Adis HODZIC in the context of the next evaluation report.  This approach would inter alia have to take into account the concept of deviations from the average.

  1. Preparation of the study session (9 December 2009) on measuring the performance of judicial systems

24.  The study session would centre on:

§  a general introduction to the subject and a parallel with other public services, by Jean-Paul JEAN;

§  a discussion of the relationship between court size and performance, by Georg STAWA;

§  an overall approach to the system for measuring performance: the lessons to be learned from the evaluation system set up in the Netherlands, by Frans van der DOELEN;

§  a consideration of how far performance measurement can go without interfering with the fundamental principles of justice, by a member of the CEPEJ-GT-QUAL.

25.  The experts concerned were invited to draw up a preliminary memorandum which could be distributed to CEPEJ members before the meeting, so that they could prepare themselves.  It was suggested that the CEPEJ's Internet Forum be used to start the discussion.

Appendix I

AGENDA / ORDRE DU JOUR

1.            Adoption of the agenda / Adoption de l’ordre du jour

2.            Information by the Secretariat / Information du Secrétariat

3.            Information on the in-depth studies from the 2008 Evaluation Report / Information relative aux études approfondies sur la base du rapport d'évaluation 2008

4.            Information on the 2008 - 2010 evaluation process / Information sur le processus d'évaluation 2008 – 2010

5.            Peer evaluation cooperation process / Processus de coopération à travers une évaluation par les pairs

6.            Guidelines on judicial statistics – GOJUST / Lignes directrices de la CEPEJ sur les statistiques judiciaires – GOJUST

7.            Definition of CEPEJ court performance indicators / Définition d'indicateurs CEPEJ pour la performance des tribunaux

8.            Preparation of the Study session (9 December 2009) on measuring the performance of judicial systems / Préparation de la session d'étude (9 décembre 2009) sur la mesure de la performance des systèmes judiciaires

9.            Any other business / Questions diverses

Appendix II

List of Participants / Liste des participants

Experts

Elsa GARCIA-MALTRAS DE BLAS, Magistrate, Responsable du Programme d’échanges au Réseau européen de formation judiciaire (REFJ), SPAIN (Member of the CEPEJ-Bureau / Membre du Bureau de la CEPEJ)

Beata Z. GRUSZCZYŃSKA, Institute of Justice, Ministry of Justice, WARSAW, POLAND

Adis HODZIC, Head of the Budget and Statistics Department, Secretariat High Judicial and Prosecutiorial council of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sarajevo, BOSNIA and HERZEGOVINA - Apologised / Excusé

Jean-Paul JEAN, Avocat général près la Cour d’Appel de Paris, Professeur associé à l’Université de Poitiers, Paris, France (Chair of the GT-EVAL / Président du GT-EVAL)

Georg STAWA, Public Prosecutor, Directorate for Central Administration and Coordination (Dept. PR1), Federal Ministry of Justice, Vienna, AUSTRIA

Dražen TRIPALO, Judge, Criminal Department, Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia, Zagreb, CROATIA - Apologised / Excusé

Frans Van der DOELEN, Programme Manager of the Department of the Justice System, Ministry of Justice, The Hague, THE NETHERLANDS

Observers / Observateurs

European Union of Rechtspfleger / Union européenne des greffiers de justice et Rechtspfleger

Harald WILSCH,  Treasurer of E.U.R., Head of the Court Clerk Office, Court of Munich, GERMANY - Apologised / Excusé

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT(LIBE COMMISSION) / PARLEMENT EUROPEEN (COMMISSION LIBE)

Claudia GUALTIERI, Parlement européen, LIBE Secretariat - Apologised  / Excusée

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION / CONSEIL DE L’UNION EUROPEENNE

Luca De Matteis, Secrétariat Général du Conseil de l'Union européenne, DG H - Unit 2 - Apologised  / Excusé

SECRETARIAT

Directorate Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs – Justice Division /

Direction générale des droits de l’Homme et des affaires juridiques (DG-HL)-

Division de la Justice

Fax: +33 3 88 41 37 43

E-mail: [email protected]

Stéphane LEYENBERGER, Secretary of the CEPEJ / Secrétaire de la CEPEJ, Tel : +33 3 88 41 34 12, e-mail: [email protected]

Interpreters / Interprètes

Nathalie BADETZ

Claude JEAN-ALEXIS