Strasbourg, 5 January 2004
CEPEJ (2003) 37
European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice
(CEPEJ)
2nd plenary meeting
Strasbourg, 2-5 December 2003
meETING REport
|
The CEPEJ invites the Committee of Ministers: a. to approve the draft scheme for evaluating judicial systems (see Addendum I to this report); b. to approve the draft organisational Charter of the European Day of Civil Justice (EDCJ) (see Addendum II to this report); c. to adopt an amendment to Resolution Res (2002)12 establishing the CEPEJ, with a view to adding, in Appendix 2, Recommendations Rec(2003)17 on enforcement, Rec(2003) 14 on the interoperability of information systems in the justice sector and Rec (2003) 16 on the execution of administrative and judicial decisions in the field of administrative law. The CEPEJ also finalised its programme of activity for 2004, decided on follow-up to bilateral activities and, following a decision of the Committee of Ministers, decided to commission preparation of a report on the efficiency of national judicial systems in responding to terrorism. |
Secretariat Memorandum
prepared by Directorate General I – Legal Affairs
I. LIST of items discussed and DECISIONS taken
A. ITEMS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS FOR DECISION
1. The CEPEJ invited the Committee of Ministers:
- to approve the draft scheme for evaluating judicial systems (see Addendum I to this report);
- to approve the draft organisational Charter of the European Day of Civil Justice (EDCJ) (see Addendum II to this report);
- to adopt an amendment to Resolution Res (2002)12 establishing the CEPEJ, with a view to adding, in Appendix 2, Recommendations Rec(2003)17 on enforcement, Rec(2003) 14 on the interoperability of information systems in the justice sector and Rec (2003) 16 on the execution of administrative and judicial decisions in the field of administrative law.
B. ITEMS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS FOR INFORMATION
2. 1. The CEPEJ invited the Committee of Ministers to take note of:
- its programme of activity for 2004 (see document CEPEJ(2003) 29 Rev) and in particular its work on evaluating judicial systems and remedying the slowness of judicial procedures, as well as its interest in matters concerning information technology in the justice sector;
- the follow-up planned for bilateral activities concerning territorial jurisdiction and mediation in the light of the ramifications of these issues for the proper functioning of justice and their potential concrete impact on legal reform in the member States;
- its decision to admit, in an observer capacity, the World Bank; furthermore, concerning the European Union of Rechtpfleger (EUR), the International Union of Judicial Officers (UIHJ), the European Association of Judges and the Council of the Bars and Law Societies of the European Community (CCBE), its decision to admit them, in an observer capacity, for a renewable period of one year, by means of hearings of a limited duration at the beginning of each plenary meeting of the CEPEJ;
- its intention, following the decision of the Ministers' Deputies of 4 December 2003 at their 864thmeeting (item 10.2), to ask the Secretariat to appoint an expert, in consultation with the Bureau to define inter alia the expert's terms of reference, with a brief to prepare an evaluation report on the efficiency of national judicial systems in responding to terrorism, in consultation with the CODEXTER;
- its exchange of views on ongoing cooperation with the European Commission in the field of justice.
3. The CEPEJ decided to hold its next meeting from 9 to 11 June 2004.
4. Finally, the CEPEJ invited the Committee of Ministers to take note of the present report as a whole.
* * * * *
II. STUDY SESSION ON "JUSTICE SERVING CITIZENS: HOW TO IMPROVE THE FUNCTIONING OF JUDICIAL SYSTEMS FOR THE BENEFIT OF USERS?" (2 December 2003)
5. On 2 December, the CEPEJ met in a study session, opened by Mr Guy DE VEL, Director General of Legal Affairs of the Council of Europe, and Mr Mark CAMLEY, Director of the Supreme Court Circuit (United Kingdom). Mr DE VEL's speech is reproduced in Appendix III to the present report. This study session was the result of a proposal from the British Delegation at the previous plenary meeting and jointly organised by the CEPEJ and the United Kingdom. It provided an opportunity for broad dialogue, based on contributions from speakers from several countries representing diverse viewpoints, including that of the users themselves. In particular, this dialogue covered the following points:
i. the importance of users' expectations, to which the judicial system had to adapt, by completely rethinking its organisation;
ii. the often very simple requests made by users (how to find a judge or a lawyer);
iii. the need to convey the message that the judicial system must be designed for its users, before being designed for judicial professionals;
iv. the key importance, for users, of the duration of procedures. In this area, excessive lengths of proceedings should be avoided, but above all users should be informed of the likely duration of the procedure initiated;
v. efforts made towards the users implied changes in how judges operated (attitude to users, clarity of decisions etc). If judges were not to regard such efforts as undermining their necessary independence, it was vital that the judges themselves be involved in considering how to better meet users' needs;
vi. the political nature of the issue of involving users was emphasised: it was the democratic nature of Council of Europe States that required citizens to be involved in the functioning of justice;
vii. one element of citizen involvement was a satisfactory means of managing complaints from users concerning the functioning of the judicial system;
viii. the role of citizens' associations to express users' views;
ix. the need to reach out to citizens who had no access to justice;
x. the benefits of involving users in the drawing up, at the different levels (local, regional, national), of Charters of rights of persons subject to court jurisdiction;
xi. possible means of involving users in the management of courts.
6. The contributions from all the speakers are posted on the CEPEJ web site (www.coe.int/cepej).
III. REPORT OF THE 2nd PLENARY MEETING OF THE CEPEJ (3-5 Dec. 2003)
7. The European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) held its 2nd plenary meeting at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg from 3 to 5 December 2003, with Mr E. DESCH (Germany), Chair of the CEPEJ, in the Chair. The meeting was opened by Mr R. LAMPONI, Director of legal cooperation of the Council of Europe. The agenda and the list of participants are set out in Appendices I and II respectively.
Information from the Secretariat
8. The Secretariat informed the CEPEJ of the recent adoption of new Recommendations by the Committee of Ministers, namely Recommendations Rec(2003)17 on enforcement, Rec(2003) 14 on the interoperability of information systems in the justice sector and Rec (2003) 16 on the execution of administrative and judicial decisions in the field of administrative law.
Activities of Working Party n° 1 (CEPEJ-GT1) (Evaluation of judicial systems)
9. The draft scheme for evaluating judicial systems was presented to the CEPEJ. Several speakers emphasised the innovative and important nature of this work. A number of comments regarding the form of the document (titles of sections in particular) were taken into account.
10.Mr Roland Eshuis (scientific expert, Netherlands) presented the results of the first application of the scheme, based on the replies of the experts of the CEPEJ-GT1 working party for their own countries.
11. The CEPEJ adopted the draft scheme by consensus and decided to forward it to the Committee of Ministers for adoption.
12.For the first use of the scheme by the member States the procedure would be as follows:
i. as soon as the scheme was adopted by the Committee of Ministers, it would be forwarded to the Justice Ministries of the member States and also to the contact person designated by each State, who would have the task of coordinating the State's replies and sending back the completed scheme on diskette or CD-ROM to the Secretariat by 15 May 2004.
13.Where the preparation of the report analysing the replies was concerned, the Netherlands proposed that the report be prepared by the Analysis centre of the Ministry of Justice. The member States were asked to make their own proposals in this connection by 15 January. This would enable the Bureau to decide to more clearly identify the respective responsibilities for preparing the analytical report.
14.It was agreed that one of the tasks of the working party set up for 2004 would be to follow up the replies and find solutions to the issues that might be raised by the replies and in the preparation of the analytical report.
Activities of Working Party n° 2 (CEPEJ-GT2) (Delays in judicial proceedings)
15. The reports prepared within working party n° 2 were presented to the members of the CEPEJ. In particular, it was stressed that the time allowed had been extremely short to deal with all the questions raised, and that this work should be continued in 2004. Several participants stressed that it was useful to be able to draw on studies and work already carried out. On that basis, one speaker proposed taking a general approach incorporating existing studies and developing a coherent overview, geared to two considerations: shortening delays on the one hand, and managing delays on the other hand.
16. The CEPEJ agreed to proceed pragmatically, identifying several practical measures aimed at shortening delays in judicial proceedings, particularly in civil cases. The CEPEJ regarded this issue as central to its task.
CEPEJ draft programme of activity for 2004
The CEPEJ adopted its Programme of activity for 2004, as set out in document CEPEJ(2003)29 rev.
The programme covered inter alia the following questions:
a. Delays in proceedings
For 2004 the CEPEJ would take a pragmatic approach to this question by producing a consolidated document on good practice and research in Europe (at both governmental and international levels)[1] and identifying several practical measures aimed at helping States to shorten delays in judicial proceedings.
b. Implementing the scheme for the evaluation of judicial systems
17. Following its adoption, the scheme for the evaluation of judicial systems (Doc. CEPEJ (2003) 35) had been forwarded to the States so that they could reply to the questions by 15 May 2004 at the latest. Analysis of the replies would provide a first evaluation of European judicial systems and the CEPEJ could benefit from the input of a consultant to prepare the evaluation report. At the same time, the scheme had been designed as a flexible tool that could be modified as needed during use as an evaluation tool.
18. These two tasks would be carried out by an 8-member working party, which would meet 3 times in 2004 in order to complete this work.
19.The CEPEJ would also carry out bilateral activities with Slovenia, Croatia, Switzerland and Malta.
20. The CEPEJ also decided, following the decision of the Ministers' Deputies of 4 December 2003 at their 864th meeting (item 10.2), to ask the Secretariat to appoint an expert, in consultation with the Bureau to define inter alia the expert's terms of reference, with a brief to prepare an evaluation report on the efficiency of national judicial systems in responding to terrorism, in consultation with the CODEXTER.
21.Finally, on a proposal from a delegation, the CEPEJ agreed to propose the holding of a Conference on the introduction of information technology in courts, to deal inter alia with matters such as debt collection arrangements and electronic communication for courts (subject to funding being available).
Work carried out by the CEPEJ in the framework of bilateral activities
22. The CEPEJ finalised the report on territorial jurisdiction prepared within the framework of bilateral activity with the Netherlands. It welcomed the fact that the report was being used as a starting point for that country's discussion of reform in this area (see document CEPEJ (2003) 18(D3)).
23. The CEPEJ finalised the report on mediation prepared within the framework of bilateral activity with Switzerland (see document CEPEJ (2003)25 (D2)). Subject to a request from Switzerland in this connection, which depended on legislative changes in progress in that country, follow-up to this work was envisaged in 2004.
24. The CEPEJ noted that these activities contributed to the good functioning of justice and had a concrete impact on legal reforms in the member States.
European Day of Civil Justice
25. The representatives of the European Commission, Portugal and Hungary reiterated the objective sought by establishing the European Day of Civil Justice. They expressed satisfaction with the success achieved by the first day, organised in 2003. Several participants raised the choice of date to be definitively set. It was agreed to retain a benchmark date (last week of October), leaving the member States free to choose a different date if their circumstances so required.
26. Following an exchange of views, the CEPEJ adopted, with several amendments and by consensus, the draft organisational charter of the European Day of Civil Justice and invited the Committee of Ministers to adopt it, in particular to emphasise the European dimension of this Day.
Requests for observer status with the CEPEJ
27.The CEPEJ decided to grant observer status to the World Bank.
28. Regarding the other requests from various organisations of judicial professionals (particularly judicial officers, bailiffs, judges and lawyers), an exchange of views was held. It was decided to grant the organisations concerned observer status with the CEPEJ for a renewable period of one year. Hearings would be organised at the beginning of the next two plenary sessions of the CEPEJ, so that these organisations could state how they intended to contribute to the commission's work.
Internet site of the CEPEJ
29. The CEPEJ welcomed the setting up of the CEPEJ internet site, which would be a key tool for publicising the CEPEJ's activities and enable judicial professionals to access information that was useful for their work.
30. The CEPEJ asked the Secretariat to explore the possibility of having a link to the CEPEJ site included on the DG I homepage.
Cooperation with the European Union
31.The CEPEJ held an exchange of views on ongoing cooperation with the European Commission in the field of justice. In particular it noted the cooperation under way on the organisation of the European Day of Civil Justice for 2004 and the conference that would focus on best practices concerning judicial proceedings in Europe.
Calendar of meetings in 2004
Bureau: 26 January
GT: 17-19 May
Plenary: 9-11 June
GT: 22-24 September
GT: 3-5 November
Bureau: 8 November
Plenary: 1-3 December
Other business
32. Mr DESCH said that he had represented the CEPEJ at a meeting of the Lisbon Network (in Bucharest in November 2003) and emphasised the keen interest taken by both the Network and the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) in the activities of the CEPEJ. He also pointed out that the Bureau would consider how best to cooperate with those bodies.
33. The representative of the Parliamentary Assembly, Mr Kevin McNAMARA, welcomed, on behalf of the Assembly, the setting up of the CEPEJ and said that these activities were central to the mission of the Council of Europe. He also stressed the importance of continued cooperation between the CEPEJ and the Parliamentary Assembly.
APPENDIX I
AGENDA
Opening of the meeting by Mr Roberto LAMPONI, Director of the Co-operation, Directorate General of Legal Affairs (Council of Europe)
Adoption of the agenda
Document
CEPEJ/ODJ (2003)2
Information by the Secretariat (inter alia on the newly adopted Recommendations by the Committee of Ministers)
Document
CEPEJ/GENERAL (2003) 2 REV- Relevant Council of Europe Resolutions and Recommendations
in the field of efficiency and fairness of justice
Works of the Working Party n° 1 (CEPEJ-GT1)(Evaluation of judicial systems)
a. Examination of the « draft Scheme for evaluating judicial systems » with a view to its adoption
b. Presentation of a preliminary report on the processing of the replies to the Scheme
Discussion on the follow-up on the work of the CEPEJ-GT1
Documents
CEPEJ (2003) 26 – Draft Scheme for evaluating judicial systems
CEPEJ (2003) 16 – Report of the 1st meeting of the CEPEJ-GT1
CEPEJ (2003) 28 – Report of the 2nd meeting of the CEPEJ-GT1
Works of the Working Party n° 2 (CEPEJ-GT2) (Delays in judicial proceedings)
a. Examination of the 3 reports on “The users of the justice system vis-à-vis the slowness of justice: how to remedy ?” prepared by the experts
b. Discussion on the follow-up to the works of the CEPEJ-GT2
Documents
CEPEJ (2003) 20 REV - Report prepared by Marco FABRI and Philip Langbroek (Delays in general)
(English only – French in preparation)
CEPEJ (2003) 19 - Report prepared by Gabriela THOMA-TWAROCH (Divorce)
CEPEJ (2003) 21 - Report prepared by Helen REEVES (Victims of crimes)
CEPEJ (2003) 31 Summary of the report prepared by Helen Reeves
CEPEJ (2003) 27 – Report of the 1st meeting of the CEPEJ-GT2
Work carried out by the CEPEJ in the framework of the bilateral activities
a. Examination of the report on territorial jurisdiction and follow-up
b. Examination of the report on mediation and follow-up
c. Examination of the proposal for bilateral activities presented by delegations for 2004[2]
Documents
CEPEJ (2003) 18 rev (D2) - Territorial jurisdiction (Activity organised with the Netherlands)
(In English only – French in preparation)
CEPEJ (2003) 30 The territorial distribution of jurisdictions in the Netherlands
(In English only)
CEPEJ (2003) 25 – The mediation (Activity organised with Switzerland)
Fichier pdf 
(English only)
CEPEJ draft Programme of activity for 2004
Examination of the CEPEJ draft programme of activity for 2004 as prepared by the Bureau, with a view of its adoption
Documents
CEPEJ (2003) 29 - CEPEJ draft Programme of activity for 2004
Resolution N° 1 of the 25th Conference of European Ministers of Justice (Sofia, October 2003)
European day of Civil Justice
a. Presentation of the European day of Civil justice in 2003
b. Examination of the draft organisational Charter of the European day of Civil Justice with a view to its adoption
Document
CEPEJ (2003) 13 rev - Draft organisational charter of the EDCJ
Requests for observer status with the CEPEJ
Examination of the requests from :
The World Bank
The European Union of Rechtspfleger (EUR)
The International Union of Judicial Officers
The European Association of Judges
The Council of the Bars and Law Societies of the European Communities (CCBE) (to be confirmed)
Internet website of the CEPEJ
Examination of a information document concerning the internet website of the CEPEJ
Document
CEPEJ-Bu (2003) 4 REV - Information document concerning the internet website of the CEPEJ
Co-operation with the European Union
Information item on the 2 Conferences which will be organised in 2004:
- on the civil code in the framework of the 200th anniversary of the French Civil code (Strasbourg, October 2004)
- on the “ best practices concerning judicial proceedings” (Brussels, November 2004)
Calendar of future work
Any other business
Information documents
CEPEJ (2003) 10 - Report of the 1st meeting of the CEPEJ
CEPEJ-BU (2003) 2 - Report of the 1st meeting of the Bureau of the CEPEJ
CEPEJ-BU (2003) 5 - Report of the 2nd meeting of the Bureau
APPENDIX II
List of participants
ALBANIA/ALBANIE
Ksenofon KRISAFI, Adviser to the Prime Minister, TIRANA
ANDORRA/ANDORRE
Carme OBIOLS, Secrétaire Générale, Conseil supérieur de la Justice, ANDORRA LA VELLA
ARMENIA/ARMENIE
Armen SANOYAN, Chief Specialist, Department of International Legal Relations, Ministry of Justice, YEREVAN
AUSTRIA/AUTRICHE
Barbara GÖTH, Deputy Head of Division, Ministry of Justice, VIENNA
Thomas GOTTWALD, Judge, Project Manager Assistant, Ministry of Justice, VIENNA
AZERBAIJAN/AZERBAIDJAN
Chingiz GASIMOV, Head of the Organisational-Analytical Department, Ministry of Justice, BAKU
BELGIUM/BELGIQUE
Meryem DEMIR, Conseiller adjoint, Direction Générale Legislation, Droits fondamentaux et Libertés, Service Public Fédéral Justice, BRUXELLES
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA/BOSNIE-HERZEGOVINE: Excusée/Apologised
BULGARIA/BULGARIE
Galina TONEVA-DACHEVA, Judge, Appeal Court of Sofia
Miroslava TODOKOVA, Judge, Vice-Chair of Sofia Regional court, SOFIA
CROATIA/CROATIE
Alan UZELAC, Ph.D. Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb, ZAGREB
CYPRUS/CHYPRE
Loukis SAVVIDES, Ex-Judge of the Supreme Court of Cyprus – Legal Consultant, LIMASSOL, Apologised / Excusé
CZECH REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
Ivana BORZOVÁ, Head, Department of Civil Supervision, Ministry of Justice, PRAHA
Jana WURSTOVA, Head, International Department, Czech Bar Association, PRAHA
DENMARK/DANEMARK
Klaus RUGAARD, Chief Consultant, Domstolsstyrelsen Økonomikontoret, København
ESTONIA/ESTONIE
Margus SARAPUU, Deputy Secretary General on Court Administration, Ministry of Justice, TALLINN
FINLAND/FINLANDE
Kari Samuli KIESILÄINEN, Director General, Head of the Department of Judicial Adminsitration, Ministry of Justice, HELSINKI
FRANCE
André POTOCKI, Président de Chambre à la Cour d’Appel de Paris, Cour d’appel de PARIS, Vice-Président de la CEPEJ / Vice Chair of the CEPEJ
GEORGIA/GEORGIE
Lasha CHELIDZE,General Representative of Georgia to the European Court of Human Rights, Ministry of Justice of Georgia, TBILISI
GERMANY/ALLEMAGNE
Eberhard DESCH, Head of Division of International Law, Bundesministerium der Justiz, BERLIN, Président de la CEPEJ / Chair of the CEPEJ
Matthias HEGER, Chef du Service de Procédure civile internationale, Ministère fédéral de la Justice, BERLIN
GREECE/GRECE
Theodore APOSTOLOPOULOS, Membre de la Cour suprême de Grèce (Areios Pagos), ATHENES
HUNGARY/HONGRIE
Gabor NAGY, Référendaire, Directeur du Bureau des Droits de l’Homme à la Cour Suprême de Hongrie, BudapesT
ICELAND/ISLANDE : Excusé /Apologised
IRELAND/IRLANDE
Ciaran KELLY, Principal Registrar High Court, Courts Service, Four Courts, DUBLIN
Iarflaith O'NEILL, Judge, the High Court, Four Courts, DUBLIN
David FENNEL, Expert, Departement of Justice, DUBLIN
ITALY/ITALIE
Mario REMUS, Magistrat à la Cour de cassation, Ministère de la Justice, ROME,
Enzo MERIGGIOLA, Membre de la direction du Centre électronique d’information, Cour de Cassation, ROME
LATVIA/LETTONIE
Aija BRANTA, Judge, Supreme Court, 36 Brivibas Bulvaris, RIGA
LIECHTENSTEIN : Excusé / Apologised
LITHUANIA/LITUANIE
Egidijus BIELIUNAS, Juge, Cour Suprême de Lituanie, Chambre criminelle, VILNIUS
LUXEMBOURG : Excusé / Apologised
MALTA/MALTE
Audrienne SPITERI-GONZI, Head of the Office of Dispute Resolution (ODR), ADR Liaison, Ministry for Justice and Home Affairs, St VENERA
MOLDOVA
Vitalie PARLOG, Head of the Government Agent and International Relations Department, Ministry of Justice, CHISINAU
NETHERLANDS/PAYS‑BAS
Pim ALBERS, Senior Policy Advisor, Strategy Department for the Administration of Justice, Ministry of Justice, THE HAGUE
NORWAY/NORVEGE
Steingrim BULL, Legal Adviser, Legislation Department, Ministry of Justice, OSLO : Excusé / Apologised
Sissel ENDRESEN, Head of the Judicial Department, National Courts Administration, TRONDHEIM
POLAND/POLOGNE
Tadeusz ERECINSKI, Professor of Law, President of the Supreme Court of Poland (Civil Chamber), WARSAW
PORTUGAL
Pedro DURO, Deputy Director, Legal and Planning Office, Ministry of Justice, LISBONNE
ROMANIA/ROUMANIE
Ion POPA, Director, Direction of Organisation, Human Resources and Judiciary Statistics, Ministry of Justice, BUCAREST
RUSSIA/RUSSIE
Yury BERESTNEV, Directeur adjoint pour les questions de droit constitutionnel, Direction principale juridique du President de la Fédération de Russie (GGPU), MOSCOW
Ivan VOLODIN, Deputy to the permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the Council of Europe, STRASBOURG, FRANCE
SAN‑MARINO/SAINT MARIN : Excusé / Apologised
SLOVAK REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE SLOVAQUE
Igor BELKO, Judge of the Supreme Court, Advisor of the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Justice, BRATISLAVA
SLOVENIA/SLOVENIE
Marko ŠORLI, Vice-President of the Supreme Court, LJUBLJANA
SPAIN/ESPAGNE :Excusé / Apologised
SWEDEN/SUEDE
Johan SANGBORN, Legal Adviser, Division for Procedural Law and Court Issues, Ministry of Justice, STOCKHOLM
SWITZERLAND/SUISSE
Frank SCHÜRMANN, Chef du service du droit de procédure pénale, Division principale du droit pénal et recours, Office Fédéral de la Justice, Département fédéral de Justice et Police, BERNE
"THE FORMER YOUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"/"L'EX-REPUBLIQUE YOUGOSLAVE DE MACEDOINE"
Nada PENOVA, State Adviser, Ministry of Justice, SKOPJE
TURKEY/TURQUIE
Mehlika AYTAÇ, Head of the Department of International Law and Foreign Relationships, Ministry of Justice, ANKARA
Aydin Sefa AKAY, Legal Counsellor, 23, boulevard de l’Orangerie, STRASBOURG, FRANCE
UKRAINE
Oleksiy PEREVEZENTSEV, Chief Advisor, International Law and International Organisations Division, Foreign Policy Directorate, Administration of the President, KIYV
UNITED KINGDOM/ROYAUME‑UNI
Edwin KILBY, Head of European Policy Unit, Department of Constitutional Affairs
LONDON
* * * * *
OBSERVERS / OBSERVATEURS
Odile GANGHOFER, Docteur en droit, Mission permanente du Saint-Siège, STRASBOURG, FRANCE
CANADA : Excusé / Apologised
JAPAN / JAPON
Itsuro TERADA, Director General, Judicial System Dept., Ministry of Justice, TOKYO, JAPAN
The Honorable Koichi KIGASAWA, Judge of Nagoya District Court, TOKYO
Naoyuki IWAI, Consul Général du Japon, Consulat Général du Japon, STRASBOURG, FRANCE
MEXICO / MEXIQUE
Carlos SALAZAR DIEZ DE SOLLANO, Observateur Permanent Adjoint auprès du Conseil de l’Europe, Mission Permanente du Mexique, STRASBOURG, FRANCE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE
Michael TEIRNAN, Consul, American Consulate General, STRASBOURG, FRANCE
* * * * *
PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY/ASSEMBLEE PARLEMENTAIRE
Kevin McNAMARA, Member of Parliament, LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM
COMITE DIRECTEUR POUR LES DROITS DE L’HOMME (CDDH) /
STEERING COMMITTEE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS (CDDH)
Renato FINOCCHI GHERSI, Substitute Procurator General, Court of Cassation, Corte di Cassazione – Procura generale, ROME, ITALY
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS /
COUR EUROPENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME
Lawrence EARLY, Deputy Section 2 Registrar, Registry, European Court of Human Rights/Greffier adjoint à la section 2, Greffe de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme, STRASBOURG, FRANCE
EUROPEAN COMMITTEE ON LEGAL CO-OPERATION /
COMITE EUROPEEN DE COOPERATION JURIDIQUE (CDCJ)
Excusé / Apologised
HAGUE CONFERENCE OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW/
CONFERENCE DE LA HAYE DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE
Hans VAN LOON, Secretary General, Hague Conference on Private International Law, THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLRANDS : Apologised/Excusé
EUROPEAN COMMITTEE ON CRIME PROBLEMS /
COMITE EUROPEEN DES PROBLEMES CRIMINELS (CDPC)
Excusé / Apologised
* * * * * *
CEPEJ-GT1 EXPERTS
FRANCE
Jean-Paul JEAN, Substitut général, Directeur de la Mission de recherche droit et justice, PARIS, France : Excusé / Apologised
ITALY / ITALIE
Fausto DE SANTIS , Directeur Général au sein du Bureau de l’organisation judiciaire, Ministère de la Justice, ROME
THE NETHERLANDS / PAYS-BAS
Roland ESHUIS, Researcher of the WODC, Dutch ministry of Justice, WODC, THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS
POLAND / POLOGNE
Beata Z. GRUSZCZYŃSKA, Institute of Justice, Ministry of Justice, WARSAW, POLAND
PORTUGAL
Maria Joao COSTA,Gabinete de Polítical Legislativa e Planeamento do Ministério da Justiça, LISBOA, PORTUGAL
UNITED KINGDOM / ROYAUME UNI
Hazel GENN, Professor of Socio-Legal Studies, Faculty of Laws, University College London, LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM
Deirdre BOYLAN, Policy Officer, Department for constitutional Affairs, LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM
CEPEJ-GT2 EXPERTS
AUSTRIA/AUTRICHE
Gabriela THOMA-TWAROCH, Richterin des Landesgerichtes, Präsidium des Landesgerichts für Zivilrechtssachen (LLGfZRS) WIEN, AUSTRIA
BULGARIA/BULGARIE
Miroslava TODOROVA, Judge, Vice-Chair of Sofia Regional Court, SOFIA, BULGARIA
ITALY/ITALIE
Marco FABRI, Senior Researcher, Istituto di Ricerca sui Sistemi Giudiziari (Research Institute on Judicial Systems), Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (National Research Council), BOLOGNA, ITALY
NORWAY/NORVEGE
Jon T. JOHNSEN, Professor in Law, Department of public law, University of Oslo, OSLO, NORWAY
SWITZERLAND/SUISSE
Monique COSSALI SAUVAIN, Chef de la Division Projets et Méthode Législatifs, Office fédéral de la justice, BERNE, SUISSE : Excusée/Apologised
UNITED KINGDOM / ROYAUME UNI
Helen REEVES, Director, Victims Support National Office, LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM : Apologised /Excusée
* * * * *
SPEAKERS FROM THE STUDY SESSION /
ORATEURS DE LA SESSION D’ETUDE
Philippe CHÉTELAT, Président du tribunal 5, Préfecture, BIENNE, SUISSE
Maria CRUZ DEL VALLE PINTOS, MADRID, SPAIN : Apologised / Excusée
Simone GABORIAU, Magistrat, Président de Chambre, Cour d’Appel de Versailles, PARIS, FRANCE
Antoine GARAPON, Secrétaire général, Institut des hautes études de la justice (IHEJ), PARIS, FRANCE
Stefano MACCIONI, National responsible for the network « Justice for the citizens », ROMA, ITALY
Rafal PELC, Biuro Rzecznika Praw Obywatelskich, WARSZAWA, POLAND
Mark CAMLEY, Director of the Supreme Court Group, Royal Court of Justice, LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM
Jillian KAY, Senior Policy Advisor, Unified Courts Administration Programme, Department of Constitutional Affairs, LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM
John STACEY, Head of Civil Business Branch, Court Service, LONDON UNITED KINGDOM
Richard WOOLFSON, Director, Consultant in Management, ICT & the Law, Lexicon Limited, Joyce Plotnikoff & Richard Woolfson, HITCHIN, UNITED KINGDOM
* * * *
OTHER PARTICIPANTS / AUTRES PARTICIPANTS
EUROPEAN COMMISSION / COMMISSION EUROPEENNE
José ALEGRE SEOANE, Administrateur, Direction Générale « Justice et Affaires d’Intérieur », BRUXELLES, BELGIQUE
Katarzyna GRZYBOWSKA, DG JAI – Unité A-5, BRUXELLES, BRUXELLES
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION / CONSEIL DE L’UNION EUROPEENNE
Excusé / Apologised
* * * * *
BANQUE MONDIALE/WORLD BANK
Klaus DECKER, World Bank, WASHINGTON, UNITED STATES
UNMIK
Jean-Christian CADY, Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary General of the United Nations, Police and Justice, UNMIK in KOSOVO
SECRETARIAT
e-mail: [email protected]
Guy De VEL, Director General of Legal Affairs / Directeur Général des Affaires Juridiques,
Roberto LAMPONI, Director of Legal Co-operation, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs / Directeur de la coopération juridique, Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques
Alexey KOJEMIAKOV, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs, Head of the Private Law Department / Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques, Chef du Service du droit privé,
Gianluca ESPOSITO, Private Law Department, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs, Secretary of the Committee / Adjoint au Chef du Service du Droit Privé, Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques, Secrétaire du Comité
Muriel DECOT, Private Law Department, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs, Co-Secretary of the Committee / Co-Secrétaire du Comité, Droit Privé, Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques
Nathalie WAWRZYNIAK, Private Law Department, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs,/ Droit Privé, Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques
Philippe BIJU-DUVAL, Private Law Department, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs, Droit Privé, Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques
Jean-Pierre GEILLER, Private Law Department, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs, Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques
Elisabeth HEURTEBISE, Private Law Department, Directorate General I -Legal Affairs / Secrétaire, Service du Droit Privé, Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques
INTERPRETERS/INTERPRETES
Robert VAN MICHEL
Pascale MICHLIN
Sylvie BOUX
APPENDIX III
ALLOCUTION D’OUVERTURE DE M. GUY DE VEL,
DIRECTEUR GENERAL DES AFFAIRES JURIDIQUES,
A L’OCCASION DE LA SESSION D’ETUDE DE LA CEPEJ SUR LE THEME : « La justice au service des citoyens : Comment améliorer son fonctionnement pour les usagers?»
(Strasbourg, le 2 décembre 2003 )
_____________________
Monsieur le Directeur, Messieurs les Président et vice-Président de la CEPEJ, Mesdames, Messieurs,
Il y a moins d’un an, en février 2003, j’ouvrais ici même les travaux de la première réunion plénière de la CEPEJ. Je suis aujourd’hui très heureux d’ouvrir cette session d’études sur le thème « La justice au service des citoyens : comment améliorer son fonctionnement pour les usagers », qui précède la deuxième réunion plénière.
Comme vous le savez, la création de la CEPEJ répondait à plusieurs objectifs. D’une part, améliorer l’efficacité de la justice dans les Etats membres, c’est un des moyens de « tarir à la source » les recours déposés devant la Cour européenne des Droits de l’Homme de Strasbourg, dernière garante du droit à un procès équitable garanti par l’article 6.1 de la Convention. Comme vous le savez, nous constatons une augmentation de ces recours, et en particulier de ceux qui portent sur le non-respect d’un délai raisonnable des procédures.
D’autre part, la CEPEJ a pour tâche d’assurer une mise en œuvre efficace des recommandations et résolutions adoptées par le Comité des Ministres du Conseil de l’Europe, qui contiennent des principes et des normes assez précises afin d’améliorer le fonctionnement et l’efficacité des juridictions dans des domaines tels que la médiation, l’accès à la justice, les procédures judiciaires et l’exécution, l‘utilisation des nouvelles technologies de l’information, le rôle des différents acteurs de la justice.
La CEPEJ a donc avant tout pour mission d’analyser le fonctionnement de nos systèmes judiciaires afin d’améliorer, là où cela est nécessaire, le service public de la justice rendu aux citoyens. Elle regarde le « système justice » du point de vue des usagers et cherche à proposer aux Etats des mesures visant à rendre ce service conforme aux attentes des citoyens, ainsi qu’aux principes et aux normes européennes en la matière.
La délégation britannique de la CEPEJ, que je souhaite publiquement et chaleureusement remercier pour cette initiative, a proposé, lors de la précédente réunion plénière, que votre commission affronte cette question à la fois simple et redoutable : le système judiciaire est-il pensé pour répondre aux besoins de ceux qui s’adressent à la justice ? Ou plus exactement, comment garantir que les besoins et les attentes des usagers de la justice sont pris en compte de manière satisfaisante ? Cette question est centrale. La CEPEJ, dès le début, a voulu se mettre à l’écoute des usagers de la justice. Cette démarche l’a conduite à aborder les questions délicates de l’évaluation de son fonctionnement, et des moyens de résoudre les délais excessifs des procédures.
Permettez-moi, à ce stade, de souligner l’importance que nous attachons à l’adoption par la CEPEJ, lors de la réunion qui commencera demain, de la Grille pour l’évaluation des systèmes judiciaires. Cette Grille permettra de repérer des difficultés, proposer des solutions ou des améliorations aux procédures et aux organisations judiciaires, dans le souci d’améliorer la qualité et les résultats des prestations. Ainsi, cette démarche ne peut être que transparente et associer toutes les structures concernées. Le bon fonctionnement des services publics judiciaires exige un dialogue constructif non seulement au sein des juridictions, mais également entre ses principaux acteurs, Ministères de la Justice, juridictions, parquets, professions juridiques et judiciaires et auxiliaires de justice, ainsi que d’être à l’écoute des besoins du justiciable et des usagers. Enfin, cette évaluation (ou audit) suppose une véritable “révolution culturelle” : de la définition des objectifs à l’identification des priorités, en passant par le suivi de ces priorités qui doit reposer sur des indicateurs qui ne sauraient être seulement quantitatifs.
Aujourd’hui, lors de cette session d’étude, l’objectif est de se placer « du côté des usagers », et de s’interroger pour savoir si les réponses apportées par les uns et les autres sont pertinentes. Et s’il n’est pas nécessaire d’inventer de nouvelles réponses.
Ces réponses ne sont d’ailleurs pas évidentes, et c’est tout l’intérêt des échanges que vous aurez aujourd’hui. D’un côté, la justice, comme tous les services publics, ne peut plus se draper dans son « splendide isolement ». Comme les hôpitaux, comme les écoles, comme les administrations, elle doit rendre des comptes : l’argent payé par les contribuables est-il utilisé comme il convient ? Les prestations offertes répondent-elles à des normes de qualité satisfaisantes ? La jurisprudence de la Cour de Strasbourg et les instruments pertinents du Comité des Ministres ont progressivement définis des standards de qualité qui s’imposent, comme d’autres normes s’imposent à d’autres services publics.
Il n’est aujourd’hui plus question de considérer les personnes qui sont présentes au tribunal, en qualité de partie demanderesse ou défenderesse, de victime, de témoin, de prévenu, comme de simples « pions ». Quelle que soit leur place et leur rôle dans la procédure, ces différentes catégories, dont les préoccupations sont bien sûrs très variées, méritent d’être considérées comme des usagers, et la prestation offerte doit garantir les standards évoqués plus haut.
Dans un premier temps, il sera question de mieux comprendre comment les usagers de la justice perçoivent son fonctionnement. Les enquêtes auprès des usagers se généralisent, et fournissent un éclairage précieux sur les attentes.
La première réponse, nécessaire, pour offrir à ces usagers une justice de qualité, c’est l’information qu’on leur fournit. L’accueil dans les tribunaux, l’information offerte, soit à un guichet, soit par les nouveaux moyens offerts par les technologies de l’information, doivent leur permettre de ne pas être « perdus » et de participer activement et consciemment au déroulement de la procédure. En ce domaine, beaucoup a déjà été fait, et les démarches présentées par les orateurs permettront de préciser les enjeux d’une bonne information des citoyens.
L’information, cependant, si elle est nécessaire, ne constitue pas une réponse suffisante. Tous les services publics sont confrontés à une tendance des usagers de ne plus être de simples « consommateurs de services ». La justice n’échappe pas à cette tendance. On voit naître et se développer, ici et là, des associations, qui représentent telle ou telle catégorie d’usagers. Je pense par exemple aux associations de victimes, ou aux associations de défense de certaines catégories de citoyens. Ces associations revendiquent un droit à être associées au fonctionnement de la justice. Comment répondre à cette demande ? Comment créer des liens entre les professionnels de la justice – les juges, les procureurs, les avocats, les huissiers, les autres professions juridiques et judiciaires – et les usagers ? Est-il possible de définir des lieux ou des structures permettant de synthétiser et de donner des réponses aux attentes si diverses des uns et des autres ? Faut-il donner à ces associations un rôle dans le fonctionnement des tribunaux ?
Interviendront, cet après-midi, plusieurs personnes sur ce thème. Il s’agit d’un débat ouvert, où il convient de bien peser les avantages et les risques d’une plus grande ouverture des systèmes judiciaires à ceux pour lesquels ils sont conçus. Il n’est par exemple pas question de remettre en cause les principes qui fondent la spécificité du service public de la justice, en tête desquels le principe d’indépendance et d’impartialité des juges.
Parmi les démarches possibles, certains avancent l’idée de développer, à différents échelons, le projet d’une Charte des justiciables. Certains pays ont déjà engagé cette démarche, d’autres y réfléchissent. Des Chartes, qui définiraient, pour les questions non réglées par les codes de procédures, les droits et les devoirs des usagers. A quel niveau une telle démarche pourrait-elle s’engager ? Est-ce qu’une démarche à l’échelon européen est envisageable ? La journée d’aujourd’hui est certainement l’occasion d’aborder ce point, parmi d’autres qui seront soulevés pendant les échanges.
A travers cette Journée d’études, ce sont les préoccupations des usagers qui doivent être mises en avant. Il vous appartiendra ensuite, lors des trois journées suivantes, de tirer profit de ces échanges pour nourrir le programme d’activité de la CEPEJ pour 2004. Je ne doute pas que vos échanges seront fructueux, et vous souhaite à tous une excellente journée de travail. Je vous remercie de votre attention.
[1] The States are invited to provide the Secretariat, by 15 January 2004, with any references to good practice and research in Europe (at both governmental and international levels) where delays in proceedings are concerned.
[2] Delegations are invited to present to the Secretariat their proposals as soon as possible, preferably before or during the plenary meeting (see also on this item the Bureau meeting report, 3 November 2003, CEPEJ–BU (2003) 5).