Strasbourg, 26 April 2005 CEPEJ-GT-EVAL (2005) 7
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
WORKING PARTY ON THE EVALUATION OF JUDICIAL SYSTEMS
(CEPEJ-GT-EVAL)
1st meeting, 23-25 February 2005
2nd meeting, 16-18 March 2005
MEETINGS REPORT
|
At its two first meetings, the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL prepared a draft revised Scheme for the evaluation of judicial systems with a view of a new evaluation exercise. The CEPEJ-GT-EVAL examined also some issues of the organisation of the Conference presenting the Report “European Judicial Systems 2002”. |
I. Introduction
1. The Working Party on the Evaluation of Judicial Systems (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL) of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) held in Strasbourg its first meeting from 23 to 25 February and its second meeting from 16 to 18 March 2005.
2. During its 1st meeting, the Working Party appointed Mr Pim ALBERS (Netherlands) as its Chairperson.
3. The agenda and the list of participants of the 1st meeting is in Appendices I and II to this Report, respectively. The agenda and the list of participants of the 2nd meeting is in Appendices III and IV to this Report, respectively. The terms of reference of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL appear in Appendix IV.
4. During the first meeting, the Chairperson welcomed the members of the Working Party, particularly those members who had not been in the previous Working Party (CEPEJ-GT-2004), namely Ms Elsa GARCIA-MALTRAS DE BLAS (Spain) and Mr Mikhail VINOGRADOV (Russian Federation). The Chairperson also welcomed Mr Jean-Claude WIWINIUS (Luxembourg), who was attending the 1st meeting as the representative of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE).
II. Dissemination of the Report on “European Judicial Systems 2002”
5. The Secretariat informed the Working Party that the Chairman of the CEPEJ, Mr Eberhard DESCH (Germany), had presented the Report on “European Judicial Systems 2002” at the 912th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies (19 January 2005). The Ministers' Deputies had welcomed the Report and encouraged the CEPEJ to continue its work of evaluating judicial systems.
6. The Secretariat also observed that the Chairman of the CEPEJ and the Director General of Legal Affairs, Mr Guy DE VEL, had been invited by the Chairperson of the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, Mr Jean-Louis BOURLANGES (France), to a public hearing on the theme of “Promoting a better quality for justice in Europe” (Brussels, 18 January 2005).
7. Evaluating the efficiency and quality of judicial systems in the European Union States had become a major issue for debate within the European Union, particularly since the Constitution for Europe included provisions on the evaluation of justice. The CEPEJ Report had been welcomed by the parliamentarians and by Commissioner FRATTINI, who had pointed out in his statement that the European Union ought to take the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and the work of the CEPEJ as reference points for its future work. He had also stressed the need to develop a wide range of synergies with the CEPEJ.
8. The Secretariat pointed out that since January it had been widely circulating the Report on “European Judicial Systems 2002” to the bodies or institutions within and out of the Council of Europe likely to be interested in the document, and encouraged the experts to disseminate the Report through appropriate channels within the States. The Secretariat had received a great deal of very positive feedback on the Report.
9. The Working Party was also informed that the Report would be presented at a scientific forum to be held in Las Vegas, as well as at a conference in the United Kingdom for politicians and academics. Spain would also be translating the Report into Spanish.
10. The Working Party decided that a summary of the Report should be prepared to outline some of its key points, aimed at encouraging people to read the whole Report. Ms Hazel GENN (United Kingdom) and Mr Roland ESHUIS (Netherlands) volunteered to prepare a draft summary.
III. Organisation of the Conference on evaluating European judicial systems
11. In accordance with the CEPEJ’s 2005 Activities Programme, a Conference on evaluating European judicial systems would be organised in order, inter alia, to ensure wide dissemination of the Report on “European Judicial Systems 2002”.
12. The Chairperson, Mr Pim ALBERS, informed the Working Party that the Netherlands Ministry of Justice was offering to host this Conference in The Hague on 2 and 3 May next.
13. The Working Party held an exchange of views on the content of the Conference Programme. It considered that in order to highlight the usefulness and originality of the Evaluation Report, the Conference ought to give the floor to individuals and institutions that were likely to be directly affected by the results set out in the report because they were responsible, in some way or another, for improving specific aspects of judicial systems, eg policy-makers, court professionals, users of justice and researchers. Such individuals would not necessarily have contributed to the preparation of the report.
14. The Conference Programme could centre on a number of key themes in the Report such as access to justice, delays or the efficiency of justice. Substantive statements on the evaluation of judicial systems in general and debates with participants could usefully complement the presentation of the conclusions to be drawn from the Report.
15. The Working Party considered that the European Court of Human Rights and the European Union should also be invited to attend so as to ensure the representation of all the relevant agencies working on the Conference theme.
16. The Conference should be attended by some 150 participants. The Council of Europe would be inviting the CEPEJ members and the national correspondents who had replied to the Pilot Scheme.
17. At the end of the second meeting of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL, the draft programme was finalised and the Secretariat was entrusted with the task of contacting the various proposed speakers.
IV. Revision of the Pilot Scheme towards the 2004 data collection
Overall approach
18. In accordance with its terms of reference, and drawing on an annotated Scheme (Doc. CEPEJ-GT-EVAL (2005) 1) comprising all the proposed amendments submitted by CEPEJ members, observers, members of CEPEJ-GT2004 and national correspondents at the various meetings in 2004, the Working Party revised the Pilot Scheme question by question.
19. The Working party decided that its task was to amend the Pilot Scheme with a view to securing a final questionnaire suitable for systematic use in future evaluation exercises. The requisite amendments should improve the questions in such a way as to prompt reliable, useful and useable replies. It was agreed that the number of questions should not be significantly increased.
Revision of the Scheme question by question
20. All the amendments made to the Pilot Scheme during the two meetings are reproduced in document CEPEJ-GT-EVAL (2005) 14. Many of the questions were amended or simply moved into various tables.
21. The general data (number of inhabitants, average annual salary, etc) were concentrated in the first section entitled “Demographical and economic data”. It was agreed that the Secretariat would ensure that the replies provided corresponded to Eurostat data format, when appropriate.
22. The Working Party noted the interesting use that had been made of the data on legal aid. Nevertheless, given that legal aid was an important indicator in terms of access to justice and an area which had been reformed in some countries, the Working party concluded that it would be useful to improve or expand on this question, or even to draw up a separate questionnaire on legal aid.
23. Since the same question could be put for each category of court professionals, the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL decided to reorganise the questionnaire by combining all the various professionals in one chapter. It was decided initially to group judges and public prosecutors together, even though public prosecutors did not have the same status in all States.
24. The Chapter “Use of Information technology in the court” was deleted and the questions moved in Chapter “Functioning”.
25. The data obtained on some chapters in the Scheme, such as those on lawyers, mediation and enforcement, had only been able to be exploited in a very limited manner, which implied that the question should be overhauled. In particular, the questions on mediation should prompt replies that highlighted the fact that the relevant legislation in some States was in transition. A final section was added on notaries.
26. An exchange of views on the quantitative and/or qualitative approach to evaluation highlighted the following facts: (i) the quantitative questions had secured a set of descriptive data that were useful for the exercise, and which should therefore remain unchanged; (ii) some qualitative questions had been interpreted in a variety of ways and should be reworked; (iii) other qualitative questions have been added to the questionnaire so that the States could provide fuller comments for specified fields.
27. The expediency of adding qualitative questions to the Scheme was also addressed, to the extent that this aspect was germane to the whole purpose of the questionnaire. Some Working Party members were convinced of the need for in-depth discussions on the quality indicators to be included in the evaluation exercise. Users of justice, victims and efficiency of justice were themes for which the questionnaire was amended.
28. It was decided to include, in a chapter dedicated to the evaluation, questions on quality standards applicable to judicial activities.
29. In the light of the current debates on possible interaction between the European Union and the Council of Europe in the field of judicial evaluation, it might be useful to envisage the possibility of including questions of common interest to both institutions.
Joint meeting CEPEJ-GT-EVAL/CEPEJ-TF-DEL (16 March 2005)
30. The CEPEJ-GT-EVAL held a joint meeting on 16 March 2005 with the Task Force on Timeframes of Proceedings (CEPEJ-TF-DEL), in order to examine the part of the Scheme containing the questions on length of proceedings.
31. It was agreed to revise the evaluation scheme to offer a precise definition of length of proceedings, by identifying starting and finishing points for measurement purposes. This would make it possible to produce detailed information on length of proceedings both at first instance and on appeal, for civil and administrative proceedings, with a particular emphasis on divorce and dismissal cases, and for criminal proceedings, in particular ones concerning robbery with violence and intentional homicide. This part is now expressly mentioned “Timeframes of proceedings”.
32. The questionnaire was also looking at the backlog of cases and pauses in proceedings, and included questions on urgent procedures and special procedures for minor disputes.
Future work
33. The Working Party stressed the need, once the questionnaire had been revised, to review the explanatory report in detail, as this would greatly contribute to reply consistency and therefore constitute a useful tool for national correspondents.
34. The modification of the Scheme would continue at the third meeting of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL in Strasbourg from 23 to 25 May 2005, in the light of the comments which would be presented by the national correspondents during their informal meeting to be organised in The Hague on 3 May 2005 at the end of the Conference on evaluating European judicial systems.
35. The next evaluation exercise was programmed as follows:
· adoption of the revised Scheme at the next plenary meeting of the CEPEJ in June 2005;
· submission of the Scheme to States before summer, inviting them to reply before the end of 2005;
· processing of data emerging from the new Scheme at the beginning of 2006.
36. The data processing arrangements had not yet been decided. The CEPEJ had two options: either calling on the services of a scientific expert, as experienced for the first evaluation exercise, or carrying out the data processing within the Secretariat, subject to the availability of appropriate financial, technical and human resources.
APPENDIX I
Agenda of the 1st meeting (23-25 February 2005)
1. Election of the Chairman
2. Adoption of the agenda
3. Information by the Secretariat
4. Report « European judicial systems 2002 »
a. Implementation of a communication strategy to ensure that the Report receives due prominence
b. Organisation of the Conference aiming at presenting the Report
5. Preparation of the 2004 data collection
a. Revision of the Pilot-Scheme with a view to collect 2004 data
b. Preparation of a list of essential data for evaluation purposes and recommendations so that States organise their statistics collection systems
6. Elaboration of the 2005 working plan of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL
Future meetings
· 16-18 March/mars 2005
Preparation of the join meeting with CEPEJ-TF-DEL (16 March 2005)
· 23-25 May or 10-12 October 2005
7. Other business
APPENDIX II
List of participants of the 1st meeting (23-25 February 2005)
FRANCE
Jean-Paul JEAN, Substitut général près la Cour d’Appel de Paris, Professeur associé à l’Université de Poitiers, PARIS
GERMANY/ALLEMAGNE
Eberhard DESCH, Head of Division of International Law, Federal Ministry of Justice, BERLIN, Chair of the CEPEJ/Président de la CEPEJ : Apologised / Excusé
NETHERLANDS/PAYS‑BAS
Pim ALBERS, Senior Policy Advisor, Strategy Department for the Administration of Justice, Ministry of Justice, THE HAGUE
POLAND / POLOGNE
Beata Z. GRUSZCZYŃSKA, Institute of Justice, Ministry of Justice, WARSAW
RUSSIA/RUSSIE
Mikhail VINOGRADOV, Lawyer, State Legal Directorate of the President of the Russian Federation (GGPU), MOSCOW
SPAIN/ESPAGNE
Elsa GARCIA-MALTRAS DE BLAS, Procureur, Conseillère à l'Unité d’entraide, Direction Générale des Relations avec l’Administration de la Justice, Ministère de la Justice, MADRID
UNITED KINGDOM / ROYAUME- UNI
Hazel GENN, Professor of Socio-Legal Studies, Faculty of Laws, University College London, LONDON
ITALY/ITALIE
Fausto DE SANTIS , Directeur Général au sein du Bureau de l’organisation judiciaire, Ministère de la Justice, ROME
SCIENTIFIC EXPERT / EXPERT SCIENTIFIQUE
Roland ESHUIS, Researcher of the WODC, Dutch ministry of Justice, THE HAGUE, The Netherlands
CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN JUGES / CONSEIL CONSULTATIF DE JUGES EUROPEENS (CCJE)
Jean‑Claude WIWINIUS, Premier Conseiller à la Cour d'Appel, Cour Supérieure de Justice, LUXEMBOURG
EUROPEAN COMMISSION / COMMISSION EUROPEENNE : Apologised / Excusé
SECRETARIAT
Stéphane LEYENBERGER, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs, Secretary of the CEPEJ / Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques, Secrétaire de la CEPEJ
Muriel DECOT, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs, Co-Secretary of the CEPEJ/ Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques, Co-Secrétaire de la CEPEJ
José-Maria FERNANDEZ VILLALOBOS, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs, Administrator / Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques, Administrator
Jean-Pierre GEILLER, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs, Principal Administrative Assistant / Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques, Assistant Administratif principal
Elisabeth HEURTEBISE, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs, Administrative assistant / Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques , Assistante Administrative
Interpreters / Interprètes
William VALK
Monique PALMIER
Didier JUNGLING
APPENDIX III
Agenda of the 2nd meeting (16-18 March 2005)
1. Adoption of the agenda
2. Information by the Secretariat
3. 16 March: Joint meeting with the Task Force on Timeframes of proceedings (CEPEJ-TF-DEL)
§ Specific analysis of the data of the “Report on European judicial systems 2002” regarding judicial timeframes, to orient the work of the Task Force
§ Revision of the Scheme for evaluating judicial system as regards judicial timeframes
4. Preparation of the collection of the 2004 data (continuation of the work undertaken during the 1st meeting of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL)
a. Revision of the Scheme with a view to collect 2004 data
b. Preparation of a list of essential data for evaluation purposes and recommendations so that States organise their statistics collection systems
5. Other business
APPENDIX IV
List of participants of the 2nd meeting (16-18 March 2005)
FRANCE
Jean-Paul JEAN, Substitut général près la Cour d’Appel de Paris, Professeur associé à l’Université de Poitiers, PARIS
GERMANY/ALLEMAGNE
Eberhard DESCH, Head of Division of International Law, Federal Ministry of Justice, BERLIN, Chair of the CEPEJ/Président de la CEPEJ : Apologised / Excusé
NETHERLANDS/PAYS‑BAS
Pim ALBERS, Senior Policy Advisor, Strategy Department for the Administration of Justice, Ministry of Justice, THE HAGUE
POLAND / POLOGNE
Beata Z. GRUSZCZYŃSKA, Institute of Justice, Ministry of Justice, WARSAW
RUSSIA/RUSSIE
Mikhail VINOGRADOV, Lawyer, State Legal Directorate of the President of the Russian Federation (GGPU), MOSCOW
SPAIN/ESPAGNE
Elsa GARCIA-MALTRAS DE BLAS, Procureur, Conseillère à l'Unité d’entraide, Direction Générale des Relations avec l’Administration de la Justice, Ministère de la Justice, MADRID
UNITED KINGDOM / ROYAUME- UNI
Hazel GENN, Professor of Socio-Legal Studies, Faculty of Laws, University College London, LONDON
ITALY/ITALIE
Fausto DE SANTIS , Directeur Général au sein du Bureau de l’organisation judiciaire, Ministère de la Justice, ROME
EUROPEAN COMMISSION / COMMISSION EUROPEENNE : Apologised / Excusé
SECRETARIAT
Stéphane LEYENBERGER, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs, Secretary of the CEPEJ / Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques, Secrétaire de la CEPEJ
Muriel DECOT, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs, Co-Secretary of the CEPEJ/ Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques, Co-Secrétaire de la CEPEJ
José-Maria FERNANDEZ VILLALOBOS, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs, Administrator / Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques, Administrator
Jean-Pierre GEILLER, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs, Principal Administrative Assistant / Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques, Assistant Administratif principal
Elisabeth HEURTEBISE, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs, Administrative assistant / Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques , Assistante Administrative
Interpreters / Interprètes
Julia DELILLE
Christopher TYCZKA
Derrick WORSDALE
APPENDIX V
Specific terms of reference
Working Group on evaluation of judicial systems
(CEPEJ-GT-EVAL)
1. Tasks
Under the authority of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), the Working Group on evaluation of judicial systems (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL) is instructed to carry out the common tool set up by the CEPEJ which aims at evaluating in an objective manner the functioning of the judicial systems in Europe.
In order to fulfil its tasks, the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL shall in particular:
a. make proposals for a communication strategy which ensures that the results of this pilot exercise for evaluating judicial systems receive due prominence;
b. revise the evaluation scheme in the light of the conclusions of the pilot exercise to ensure the relevance of the exercise of evaluation of the European judicial systems, as an ongoing process;
c. draw up a list of essential data for evaluation purposes and make recommendations so that States organise their statistics collection systems so as to be able to supply those data in future;
d. make proposals for appropriate exploitation of the results achieved through the evaluation exercise and formulate if possible concrete guidelines in order to improve the efficiency of judicial systems in Europe.
2. Composition
The CEPEJ-GT-EVAL shall be composed of 6 members of the CEPEJ or other experts appointed by the CEPEJ who have an in-depth knowledge in the field of the evaluation of judicial systems. Their travel and subsistence expenses will be borne by the budget of the Council of Europe. Other experts appointed by the member States might participate in its work, at their own expenses.
The relevant Council of Europe and European Union bodies might be represented to the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL without the right to vote or defrayal expenses.
The non governmental organisations granted with the observer status to the CEPEJ might be invited by the Bureau to participate in the work of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL, on a case-by-case basis, if the Bureau considers their attendance relevant for the quality of the work.
3. Working structures and methods
The CEPEJ-GT-EVAL will organise 3 meetings in 2005, one of them being combined with one meeting of the CEPEJ-TF-DEL.
It will rely on particular the network of national correspondents entrusted with the fulfilment of the Scheme.
In carrying out its terms of reference, the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL may seek the advice of external experts and have recourse to studies by consultants.
4. Duration
These terms of reference expire on 31 December 2006.