Strasbourg, 20 avril 2006

CEPEJ-TF-DEL (2006) 2

COMMISSION EUROPÉENNE POUR L’EFFICACITÉ DE LA JUSTICE

(CEPEJ)

TASK FORCE DE LA CEPEJ SUR LES DELAIS JUDICIAIRES

(CEPEJ-TF-DEL)

4^e réunion

Bucarest, 3 - 4 avril 2006

RAPPORT DE RÉUNION

1.    La Task Force sur les délais de procédure (CEPEJ-TF-DEL) de la Commission européenne pour l’efficacité de la justice (CEPEJ) a tenu sa 4^e réunion à Bucarest, au ministère de la Justice, les 3 et 4 avril 2006. La réunion était présidée par M. Alan UZELAC (Croatie).

2.    La réunion était organisée à l’issue de la Conférence sur les "remèdes aux procédures excessivement longues : une nouvelle approche des obligations des Etats membres du Conseil de l'Europe" (voir les paragraphes 4 à 6 ci-après) et avant la première réunion du Réseau des tribunaux référents de la CEPEJ, organisée en coopération avec le ministère de la Justice et le Conseil supérieur de la magistrature de Roumanie, dans le cadre de la présidence roumaine du Comité des Ministres du Conseil de l'Europe.  

3.    L’ordre du jour et la liste des participants font l’objet des annexes I et II au présent rapport.

Conférence sur les "Remèdes aux procédures excessivement longues : une nouvelle approche des obligations des Etats membres du Conseil de l'Europe" (Bucarest, 3 avril)

4.    Avant sa réunion, la Task Force a participé à la Conférence organisée par la Commission de Venise dans le cadre de la présidence roumaine du Comité des Ministres du Conseil de l'Europe. La conférence a donné l’occasion de présenter une analyse de l’évaluation et des perspectives des remèdes aux procédures excessivement longues au niveau de la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des Droits de l'Homme, du Comité des Ministres, des activités de la CEPEJ ainsi qu’au niveau de la législation et de la pratique judiciaire en Roumanie.

5.    Le Président de la CEPEJ, M. Eberhard DESCH, et le Président de la CEPEJ‑TF‑DEL, M. Alan UZELAC, présentent les travaux en cours à la CEPEJ pour la mise en œuvre concrète du Programme-cadre sur les délais de procédure.

6.    La discussion porte notamment sur l’arrêt de la Cour dans l’affaire Scordino c. Italie (29 mars 2006) dans lequel le Programme-cadre de la CEPEJ a été mentionné parmi les dispositions pertinentes prises en compte par la Cour pour la décision de sa Grande chambre[1]. La juge Françoise TULKENS a souligné la complémentarité entre la CEPEJ, qui travaille a priori pour prévenir les violations de l’article 6 de la Convention et la Cour, qui s’occupe a posteriori de sanctionner ces violations.

I.              Information par le Secrétariat

7.    Au nom du Directeur Général des Affaires Juridiques, le Secrétariat remercie le Ministre roumain de la Justice qui accueille la réunion. Le membre de la CEPEJ au titre de la Roumanie, M. Cristi DANILET, confirme que ses autorités accordent tout leur soutien au travail de la CEPEJ et souligne l’intérêt particulier de ses travaux pour les réformes de la procédure civile et pénale en Roumanie.

8.    Le Secrétariat informe la Task Force que les secrétariats de la CEPEJ et du Conseil consultatif des juges d’Europe (CCJE) ont été regroupés au sein de la Division de la justice et des programmes juridiques afin de faciliter des synergies appropriées entre ces deux organes, dans le respect de leurs missions et de leurs spécificités.

9.    Les représentants de l’Union européenne des greffiers de justice (EUR) remercient la Task Force de leur avoir permis de participer en tant qu’observateurs à sa réunion et soulignent que la mise en œuvre du Programme-cadre sur les délais des procédures concerne tous les praticiens de la justice, y compris les greffiers de justice.

 

10. Le Secrétariat présente à la Task Force la publication: "Checklist  pour la gestion du temps" (5 000 exemplaires) destinée à une large diffusion. Il invite les membres de la Task Force à présenter au Secrétariat les listes d’envoi et les listes d’adresses électroniques pertinentes au niveau national pour s'assurer que les principaux partenaires reçoivent les documents.  

Les Etats membres sont encouragés à traduire ce document. Les traductions devraient être accessibles sur le site web de la CEPEJ.

Les représentants de l’EUR indiquent qu’ils sont prêts à diffuser la Check-list parmi leurs membres et dans les institutions de formation des greffiers.

II.            Etude de la situation des délais judiciaires dans la jurisprudence de la CEDH

11.La Task Force rend hommage au travail de l’expert scientifique, M^me Françoise CALVEZ, et la remercie chaleureusement pour son excellent projet de rapport sur la situation des délais judiciaires dans les Etats membres du Conseil de l'Europe à la lumière de la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des Droits de l'Homme. 

12.M^me CALVEZ indique que la Cour européenne des Droits de l'Homme ne fournit pas de chiffre concernant les délais judiciaires, mais porte une attention particulière aux procédures qui durent depuis plus de deux ans. Elle souligne cependant que la Cour est plus exigeante pour les affaires prioritaires en fonction des intérêts en jeu pour les parties. D’une manière générale, la Cour s’intéresse davantage à l’inertie des procédures plutôt qu’à des délais particuliers.  

13.Elle fait remarquer que les affaires traitées par la Cour sont des cas pathologiques quant aux délais des procédures et ne reflètent pas toujours le volume et la nature des cas à l’échelon national : par exemple, les affaires de divorce sont sous-représentées alors que certaines affaires pénales (notamment les escroqueries) sont surreprésentées.

14.La version finale du rapport devra être révisée pour prendre en compte la jurisprudence récente et notamment l’arrêt dans l’affaire Scordino c. Italie.

15.Il est convenu que la version finale du rapport présentera des catégories d’affaires, et notamment des affaires jugées prioritaires et les affaires les plus fréquentes dans lesquelles ont été constatées des violations concernant le délai raisonnable de la procédure. Si possible, la typologie des affaires pourrait être présentée sous forme de tableaux (par exemple, les affaires de droit du travail, les affaires de responsabilité civile, le trafic de drogues, etc.). Il est également proposé que le rapport mette en évidence les affaires dans lesquelles la violation de l’article 6 n’a pas été constatée, après examen des éléments fournis par les gouvernements.

16.Le rapport pourrait aussi présenter des tendances concernant la durée totale des procédures, ainsi que la durée des procédures de première instance, des instances de recours et éventuellement d’autres procédures.  

17.L’étude pourrait examiner la juste mesure à respecter entre la rapidité et l’équité.

18.Enfin, les experts conviennent que le rapport devrait comprendre un résumé présentant les principales conclusions, afin d’être plus exploitable à des fins pratiques.  

19.Il est convenu qu’une fois adopté, le rapport devrait être, d’une part, publié en tant que tel – il est proposé de créer une série : "les publications de la CEPEJ" – et d’autre part, utilisé par la Task Force comme un instrument permettant d’élaborer des mesures concrètes pour la mise en œuvre de Programme‑cadre, et notamment des mesures permettant d’éviter les erreurs récurrentes qui entraînent des retards dans les procédures. Les conclusions de l’étude pourraient être analysées à la lumière du Programme-cadre, pour évaluer dans quelle mesure les affaires traitées par la Cour sont compatibles avec les lignes d’action du programme.

20.Il est convenu que M^me CALVEZ finalisera le projet de rapport avant la fin juin 2006, de manière à ce que les membres de la Task Force aient le temps de l’étudier avant son examen final et son adoption lors de leur 5^e réunion (20‑22 septembre 2006).

III.  Etude : "Gestion du temps dans les tribunaux d’Europe du Nord"

21.La Task Force souligne l'excellent travail accompli par l’expert scientifique, M^me Mirka SMOLEJ, et les experts du Danemark, de la Finlande, de la Norvège et de Suède, sous la coordination de M. Jon JOHNSEN. Elle les remercie chaleureusement pour ce rapport qui résume les études et les rapports existants sur les systèmes judiciaires, notamment des études sur les systèmes de gestion du temps ("desk policy practices") utilisés au cours des dix dernières années ainsi que des propositions de réforme visant à améliorer le calcul et la gestion des délais. Ils remarquent que ce travail a été possible grâce au fort soutient des pays concernés à l’activité de la CEPEJ.

22.Le rapport une fois terminé, comme pour celui de M^me CALVEZ, pourrait servir à deux niveaux :

§  comme publication de la CEPEJ (deuxième publication de la série "Publications de la CEPEJ") ;

§  comme instrument de politiques publiques de la justice, grâce à l’exploitation des mesures qu’il préconise et à l’extrapolation éventuelle de certaines de ces mesures à l’ensemble des Etats membres.

23.Il est entendu que le rapport pourrait être une source pour le Compendium de bonnes pratiques et pour établir une typologie des affaires.

24.M. JOHNSEN propose d’envoyer le projet au membre de la CEPEJ au titre de l’Estonie afin qu’il puisse le compléter par des éléments spécifiques concernant son pays. Les représentants de l’EUR proposent d’envoyer le projet à leurs membres des pays concernés afin d’inclure d’éventuelles informations supplémentaires.

25.La Task Force convient avec l’expert scientifique que le rapport sera finalisé et adopté lors de la 5^e réunion (20 ‑ 22 septembre 2006).

IV. Compendium des bonnes pratiques pour la mise en œuvre des lignes d’action du Programme-cadre sur les délais judiciaires

26.L’expert scientifique, M. Marco FABRI, présente le document de travail établi avec son collègue M. Francesco CONTINI, concernant le thème éventuel et les principaux éléments examinés dans le Compendium. Ce document fait l’objet de l’annexe III au présent rapport.

27.Il souligne que les "bonnes pratiques" sont les "pratiques mises en œuvre avec succès dans un contexte précis".

28.Les membres de la Task Force recommandent de ne pas limiter les sources du Compendium sur les seules informations fournies par les tribunaux référents de la CEPEJ, mais de consulter d’autres documents, y compris les rapports mentionnés précédemment et les études de la Commission de Venise et du Comité directeur pour les droits de l’homme (CDDH). Certains experts notent  cependant qu’il ne faut pas multiplier les sources afin que le document reste cohérent et pratique. Les membres conviennent de préciser par écrit aux experts scientifiques les autres sources qui pourraient être prises en compte.

29.Les experts soulignent que le Compendium ne doit présenter que les pratiques qui peuvent être transposées à d’autres tribunaux d’autres pays. Ils insistent sur le fait que les pratiques sélectionnées doivent concerner les systèmes de justice civil et pénal.

30.L’expert scientifique propose de sélectionner quelques pratiques pour une analyse approfondie, et notamment une description plus détaillée.

 

31.M. Jon JOHNSEN présente une proposition concernant l’étude approfondie d’une pratique spécifique pour une justice pénale plus rapide en Norvège. La Task Force convient que cette étude pourra être utilisée à la fois dans le Compendium et pour compléter l’étude mentionnée précédemment sur "la gestion du temps dans les tribunaux des pays d’Europe du Nord".

32.La Task Force décide que, bien que l’objectif principal du Compendium soit de proposer des modalités concrètes pour la mise en œuvre des quinze lignes d’action du Programme-cadre identifiées précédemment, la structure du Compendium peut différer de celle du Programme-cadre. Les membres prennent note de la structure proposée par les experts scientifiques et conviennent de présenter par écrit des amendements éventuels à ces propositions.

33.Pour développer le Compendium, l’expert scientifique propose de préparer des "cartes d’identité" des tribunaux référents (voir annexe IV) qui seraient remplies par le Secrétariat à partir des informations disponibles sur les tribunaux référents avant d’être envoyées aux tribunaux concernés à des fins d’amendements. La Task Force convient d’évoquer cette question avec les tribunaux référents lors de leur première réunion (Bucarest, 5  - 6 avril).

34.Le Président de la CEPEJ, M. Eberhard DESCH, fait remarquer que le Compendium ne doit pas être un document scientifique, mais doit rester un outil pratique proposé par la CEPEJ au Comité des Ministres, aux responsables de l’élaboration des politiques nationales et aux praticiens du droit.

35.Les experts conviennent de la nécessité de rédiger le Compendium pour en faire un outil pratique et facile à utiliser pour les décideurs politiques, en portant une attention particulière à l’indexation. Ils insistent sur le fait que le document devra être régulièrement actualisé.

36.En se référant à son mandat, la Task Force confirme que le projet de Compendium doit être préparé de manière à pouvoir être adopté à la 8^e réunion plénière de la CEPEJ (6 - 8 décembre 2006).

V.  Etablissement d’une typologie de cas et des délais de procédure correspondants

37.La Task Force convient de revenir sur ce point lors de ses prochaines réunions, sur la base d’un document préliminaire qui sera préparé par le Secrétariat.        

Annexe I

ORDRE DU JOUR

1.         Adoption de l’ordre du jour

2.         Information du Secrétariat

3.         Etude de la situation des délais judiciaires dans la jurisprudence de la CEDH

§    Discussion du Rapport en vue de son adoption par la Task Force et sa soumission à la réunion plénière de la CEPEJ

§    Propositions pour le suivi du Rapport

4.         Etude: « Gestion des délais dans les tribunaux des pays d’Europe du Nord »

§    Discussion avec les experts chargés de la préparation du Rapport

§    Propositions pour le suivi du Rapport

5.         Compendium de bonnes pratiques: session de travail avec M. Marco FABRI (Italie), expert-scientifique

§    Structure du Compendium

§    Sélection des bonnes pratiques

§    Préparation de la réunion du Réseau des tribunaux-référents

6.       Outil de mesure des délais judiciaires

§    Mise en place d'une typologie de cas et de délais de procédure correspondants

           

7.         Questions diverses

Annexe II

List of partipants / Liste des participants

Eberhard DESCH, Head of Division of International Law, Federal Ministry of Justice, Berlin, GERMANY, Chair of the CEPEJ/Président de la CEPEJ

Jon T. JOHNSEN, Dean of the Faculty of law, University of Oslo,  NORWAY

Janny C. KRANENBURG, Vice-President, Court of Appeal of s’Hertogenbosch, Sector Civiel Recht II, The Netherlands 

Gabor NAGY, Conseiller Référendaire, Directeur du Bureau des Droits de l’Homme à la Cour Suprême de Hongrie, Budapest,  Hongrie 

John STACEY, Head of Civil and Family Procedures Branch, Customer Services Directorate, The Court Service HQ, London, UNITED KINGDOM

Alan UZELAC, Ph.D. Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb, Croatia, Chair of the CEPEJ-TF-DEL/Président de la CEPEJ-TF-DEL

Michael VRONTAKIS,  Vice-Président du Conseil d’Etat, Arsakeion Megaron, Avenue Panepistimiou 47, ATHENES, Grece, e-mail: [email protected]

Jana WURSTOVA, Head, International Department, Czech Bar Association, Prague, Czech republic  

***

OBSERVERS / OBSERVATEURS

WORLD BANK / BANQUE MONDIALE

Klaus DECKER, Counsel, Justice Reform Practice Group, WORLD BANK, Washington D.C, USA

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

Gabriele GUARDA, Présidente de l’UER, Greffier en chef du Tribunal de Première Instance de Padova, ITALIE

Jean-Jacques KUSTER, Représentant de l’EUR auprès du Conseil de l’Europe, Greffier en Chef du Tribunal d’Instance de Strasbourg, FRANCE

***

SCIENTIFIC EXPERT / EXPERT SCIENTIFIQUE

Françoise CALVEZ, Magistrat, Observatoire du droit européen, Cour de Cassation, Paris, FRANCE

Marco FABRI, Senior Researcher, Research Institute on Judicial Systems) National Research Council, Bologna, ITALY

Mirka SMOLEJ, Researcher at the Finnish National Research Institute for Legal Policies, National Research Institute of Legal Policy in Finland, Helsinki, FINLAND

***

CEPEJ SECRETARIAT - Fax: +33 3 88 41 37 43 - e-mail: [email protected]

Stéphane LEYENBERGER, Secretary of the CEPEJ, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs, / Secrétaire de la CEPEJ, Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques, Tel : +33 3 88 41 28 41, e-mail: [email protected]

Muriel DECOT, Co-Secretary of the CEPEJ, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs, / Co-Secrétaire de la CEPEJ, Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques, Tel : +33 3  90 20 44 55,  e-mail : [email protected]

Elisabeth HEURTEBISE, Administrative Assistant of the CEPEJ, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs / / Assistante administrative de la CEPEJ, Direction Générale I – Affaires Juridiques,

INTERPRETERS / INTERPRETES

Antoinette BOURDELET-GOFFINET

Marianne DE-SUSBIELLE

Annexe III

 

Structure of the draft Compendium

First draft March 31, 2006, to be discussed at the CEPEJ Meeting in Bucharest, Romania, 3-4 April 2006.

Marco Fabri and Francesco Contini

1. Introduction

Our task is to “prepare a draft Compendium of best practices on the court management of timeframes of judicial proceedings […] the draft Compendium will aim to provide policy makers and judicial professionals within the member states with concrete measures successfully applied in courts [taking] into account the information given by the members of the CEPEJ Network of Pilot courts [and] other materials submitted to him by the CEPEJ Secretariat”.

In order to do that, we are submitting to you our first draft of a possible structure of the Compendium, which is based on the documents that we have received from the CEPEJ Secretariat. In particular, at this stage, since we have to meet the representatives of the pilot courts, we mainly considered the Framework Programme, the Synthesis, the Responses of the pilot courts to the questionnaire, the CEPEJ Meeting reports.

We also received only one contribution from a CEPEJ expert, which briefly addresses the best practices reported from the pilot courts about two specific “Lines of action” (no. 3 and 10). We wonder if we were supposed to receive some other contributions of this kind, as foresaw in point 49 of the Report of the 3^rd CEPEJ meeting held in November 2005.

We also need some clarification on the possible usage of other materials, such us the very informative “A best practice example: Norway’s Project on Swifter Criminal Justice”, but also all the other documents that do not directly deal with the pilot courts.

We also need to better understand from CEPEJ if the Compendium should concentrate on best practice to design, implement and monitor timeframes (court standards) or on policies (best practices, in general) to tackle the length of proceedings. It goes without saying that this makes a huge difference in the scope of the project and the amount of work to carry on.

The material is cumbersome, there are 15 Lines of action to consider, the questionnaire has many open questions, therefore answers are quite difficult to manage and to compare, the responses of the pilot courts are not always very informative, they often take into consideration general policies rather than specific (best) practices, but they certainly give, if well organized, a first important map.

Just to have an idea of some of the main features of the 45 pilot courts involved in this endeavour, we may classify them as follows:

a) kind of jurisdiction

37 courts of general jurisdiction

3 commercial courts

1 civil court

3 administrative courts

1 serious crime court

b) level of jurisdiction

36 courts of first instance

9 courts of appeal

c) Number of judges

16 courts have from 1 to 15 judges

14 courts have from 16 to 40 judges

10 courts have from 40 to 341

Given the complexity of the task, the variety and number of courts involved, first of all we need to share some basic assumptions, which should allow us to better understand how to proceed in the development of the Compendium.

In addition, we should also share a common meaning of some terms used, so we also propose to build a short glossary of terms.

This first draft needs to be explained and embeds several questions that need to be answered during the experts’ meeting.

2. Basic assumptions

Reading the material available and start thinking about the structure of the Compendium, we come up with the following basic assumptions.

a)    The so called unit of analysis of this project is the pilot court.

b)    45 countries to consider in a comparative Compendium is a difficult task and it is our understanding that the Compendium should not be only a barren list of policies or best practices.

c)    The interesting fifteen Lines of action are articulated into several other points and they look quite difficult to carry on in a comparative exercise, in addition some of them are highly intertwined, which means that the Compendium should try to simplify their description.

d)    Empirical research in Anglo-Saxon countries has showed that court “delay” does not seem to be related to the court size, the seriousness of the caseload, the caseload per judge, the existence of alternative dispute resolution programs, but some other factors such as: judicial commitment, leadership and adequate accountability mechanisms, the involvement of the different actors in the system, the court supervision of case progress, definition of goals and standards monitoring of cases by an information system, a case management approach, a policy against unjustifiable continuances, like a firm trial date and a ‘backup judge’ system for trials, an individual assignment system (Mahoney B., Changing Times in Trial Courts, Williamsburg, VA., NCSC, 1988; Steelman D. Case-flow Management: The Heart of Court Management in the New Millennium, Williamsburg, VA. NCSC, 2000, Fabri M. and P. Langbroek, Delay in judicial proceedings in Europe: a preliminary inquiry, Report to CEPEJ, 2003).

e)    We cannot consider court governance and different procedure of every country, (also at the broad level of criminal, civil or administrative procedures) due to the scale of the project. Maybe in the future, it may be useful to start exploring some variables in the different countries that may bring to the establishment of cluster of countries. This exercise will probably lead to a more significant comparisons among them.

Therefore:

f)     The Compendium is a descriptive exercise based mainly on the information made available by the pilot courts.

g)    The Compendium, to add value to the work already developed by the CEPEJ and to take the most from the pilot courts, should present an inventory of different policies undertaken in the different countries, but it should also give some new ideas and methods to approach the problem of the length of proceeding.

h)    The Compendium cannot give instructions on the transferability from country to country of the policies described.

i)      The Compendium cannot take into consideration the peculiarities of each jurisdiction.

j)      The Compendium will not give specific information on how to proceed to test the policies and practices described.

3. Draft of the structure of the Compendium

We suggest organizing the Compendium as follows:

Introduction

The introduction will explain the main steps of the project, its goals, the method used, the basic assumptions, its limits, its possible future developments, a short glossary of terms used.

Section One

This first section will present the information collected. They will be classified accordingly to two set of criteria, in the attempt to have a first comprehensive map of the initiatives reported by every pilot court.

The first criterion is related to each Line of action of the framework programme, consolidated by us in three main action areas:

1)    Timeframes (design, adoption and implementation).

2)    Procedures.

3)    Stakeholders.

The second criterion is related to the level (macro-meso-micro) of the actors that may design and implement a policy or a practice to tackle the length of proceedings. These three levels are defined as follows:

A)   State policies (macro level).

B)   Court policies (meso level).

C)   Judge’s practices (micro level).

These criteria will generate a table “Action areas and level of actors involved” with thefollowing structure:

Action areas / Level of actors involved	State policies	Court policies	Judge’s practices
Timeframes
Procedures
Stakeholders

Each level has different stakeholders, who may be involved in the policy, and the information collected so far shows the different efforts of each country at these three levels.

We also have an international level (Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe recommendation and guidelines, European Commission) which will not be considered in the Compendium, but the pilot courts may be involved in defying the expectations that they might have from these institutions.

Some of the information collected are quite informative, some are much less. It depends on CEPEJ to decide to make a further investment in the collection of more detailed information from the pilot courts.

Below we have provided for a Synopsis of policies and practices as a first rough classification, based on the Synthesis provide for the CEPEJ Secretariat. The Synopsis follows these criteria, to show the complexity to manage, and the relatively low heuristic contribution of this kind of information.

However, this map should allow the identification of not less than three “In-depth case study”, one for each area (Timeframes, Procedures, Stakeholders), which should explore in-depth the development of the actions taken throughout the justice system chain, which means from the State level, through the Court policies, to the Judge’s practices. In this way, we should have a better qualitative understanding of successful or, at least, highly interesting policies and practices that had a real impact in the day-to-day court functioning.

Section 2

The second section of the Compendium will deal with these “In-depth case studies”, in order to increase the content of the information provided with the Compendium, and to sketch some conclusions.

CEPEJ will choose these case studies, and each of them will develop a more narrative in-depth description of the policy that succeeded based on some basic instructions. In this way, the Compendium will add value to the informative work done so far, and it will set the stage for further development and possible test beds in the pilot courts.

Conclusion

The conclusion should develop some new ideas and method drawn for the analysis of the pilot courts and the “In-depth case studies” to tackle the problem of the length of proceedings throughout the justice system chain (State, courts, judges).

4. What is next

If the above mentioned draft structure makes sense, we foresee the following actions:

1)    The CEPEJ’s experts or Secretariat should fill out a card (see below two examples of cards filled out) for each pilot court with the information that come from the responses given to the questionnaire by the pilot courts and from comments by CEPEJ’s experts.

2)    Pilot court cards will be sent to each pilot court to be checked and amended, and returned in due time to the CEPEJ Secretariat.

3)    In the meanwhile CEPEJ could choose the “In-depth case studies”.

4)    We prepare some instructions to guide the writing of the “In-depth case studies”.

5)    We collect all the information and draft a preliminary version of the Compendium not later than 1 September 2006, so all the above actions should be completed not later than June 15, 2006.

Example of glossary of terms

Backlog - generally speaking, it is considered the accumulation of uncompleted work or matters needing to be dealt with (The Concise Oxford English Dictionary). In case management, it is definied as the number of cases not decided within an established time standard.

We propose to use the latter definition. Therefore there is a difference between pending cases (cases to be dealt with), and backlog (pending cases that exceed the time standard).

Policy - a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by an organization (The Concise Oxford English Dictionary); a course of action or inaction chosen by authorities to address a given problem or interrelated set of problems.

Practice - practical actions undertaken by organisational actors (Suchman, 1983, Office Procedures as practical action, ACM, Vol. 1 pp. 320-328).

Timeframe - a period of time during which an action occurs or will occur. (The Oxford American Dictionary of Current English. Oxford University Press, 1999.).

Time standard - the time allowed to carry out a task. (A Dictionary of Business. Oxford University Press, 2002).

Time limit - a limit of time within which something must be done (The Concise Oxford English Dictionary).

We propose to use Timeframe and Time standard as synonyms, however it should be explained if and when it is set at the State, Court or single Judge level. We propose to use Time limit when the limit is set by a statute.

Synopsis of policies and practices at State, court and judge levels related with the lines of action of the framework programme.

This first rough classification is based on the information provided in the Synthesis of the replies on the situation of the timeframes of proceedings (CEPEJ-TF-DEL (2005) 4 Rev 6 28 February 2006)

Table 1 – Areas of actions and level of actors involved

TIMEFRAMES	State policies			Court policies			Judge’ s practices
Line of Action 3: Improving the foreseeability of the timeframes.	Average length of proceedings proposed by the Ministry of Justice with consent from the Parliament (Norway) Statutory maximum timeframes (limits) for certain type of cases (ex. custody cases: 8 weeks for the appeal for the hearing to start) (Norway) General targets 6 months for civil cases (Iceland); 18 months defined by the Court rules (Slovenia) Calculated targets 58 % of the civil cases to be completed within 1 year from filing of the case; 63 % of the criminal cases to be completed within 2 months and 95% within 6 months. (Denmark) Tagets established by the Court Service 80 % of small claims addressed within 15 weeks, 85 % of fast track within 30 weeks, 85 % of multi-track within 50 weeks (England & Wales)			Negotiated between the Ministry of Justice and the Court of Appeal during the budgetary negotiations (Finland). All units within the court define their targets (Sweden)			Deadline given [by the court?] to the judge to undertake the first action as regards the procedure (Croatia). Statistics published in the Official Gazette:  shows how many cases were settled each month by a judge in a given matter, which enables a benchmarking (Hungary)
Line of Action 3: Transparency of timeframes for the users.	Legal obligation for the judge to inform the parties of the estimated timetable of the procedure (Finland).			Parties informed of when they can expect the judgement to be pronounced when the appeal hearing is concluded; if this proves to be untenable, then the delay is notified to the lawyer with new date for pronouncement (Norway).
Line of Action 3: Enforcement of timeframes.	Monthly statistics, analysed by upper courts, which enables a benchmarking between the courts at the same level; regular visits by judges from upper courts to analyse the pending cases for a given timeframe (Germany) Regular statistics and annual reporting from the courts of first instance to the Supreme Court (Cyprus). Monitoring by the upper court on the monthly report of the lower judge (Hungary). Statistics submitted to the Court Administration twice a year including the terms and the results of the adjudication of the case (Latvia)			IT integrated system ensuring a continuous monitoring of all cases and the time for processing each case (Denmark, Finland); Annual court account and the statistics which may be printed from the systems on an ongoing basis are used internally by the court’s manager for evaluation and monitoring of the time of processing each case and the productivity of the court’s divisions (Denmark); Computerised detection of long duration for cases (Hungary); Reporting on the cases pending for 3 months through specific software (Lithuania); Court's Informative System reflecting all data regarding concrete cases, including terms (Latvia). Regular analyses of the pending cases by the court president (Albania, Austria, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom). Monthly and annual statistics controlled by the registrar and the judge (Cyprus). Control through statistics on the basis of deadlines for the first act to be taken by the judge (Croatia). Judges’ portfolios surveyed every month; lengths of proceedings monitored and evaluated with statistical measures as a routine, at least every third month (Norway). Regular assessment of all the pending cases (Bulgaria).			Progress report on the problematic cases [sent to upper courts] (Germany) IT based checklist of registered cases for more than 3 months, handed monthly to the court president, the judges concerned and their secretaries (Austria); Regular reporting by the judge (Iceland, Slovenia) Systematic and regular reporting by the individual judges on the cases for which a decision has not been delivered for more than 2 months (Austria). Monthly reporting by the judge on the pending cases (2 – 5 years)  he/she is responsible for (Hungary). Weekly meetings of the judges to discuss cases (Latvia)
Line of Action 4: Defining and monitoring standards for an optimum timeframes for each type of case.	When a court is extraordinarily burdened by specific cases, sitting judges or extraordinary judges are appointed to this court (Norway).			Reports on the inactivity of the parties (United Kingdom)			Limits decided by the judges for the experts (Austria) Postponing the adjudication of a case obligatory requests the determination of a new date for the hearing (Latvia)
Line of Action 7: Allowing adjustment of timeframes.				At appeal level, simultaneous letters sent to both counsels, which state the deadlines for new submissions, evidential lists and input on time and place for the appeal proceeding (counsels are asked if a given number of days are sufficient for the hearing and whether a given location is suitable); letters are followed by telephone calls from the court administration to decide on the date and duration of the hearing: when the preparation of the case starts, it is clear to everyone when the matter will come up (Norway). Informal case preparatory conferences with the prosecutors for the most complex cases to discuss the scope of the evidence presentation, how the evidences should be presented, the need to appoint expert witnesses, […] how a reasonable and realistic timing schedule will appear, etc. (Norway).			A week or two before the appeal hearing, the judge contacts the counsel directly (e-mail) and orders them to prepare a detailed joint timetable for the appeal hearing (presentation of witnesses, etc); he/she also orders them to bring with them concrete arguments pleading for presentation at the appeal hearing. This alone is a real time-saver: obliges the counsels to talk to each other and agree on the practical arrangements; induces them to highlight their points, and thus avoids irrelevant and immaterial issues (Norway).
Line of Action 12: Setting up a procedure to revive a pending case.			Complaints from a party to the Head of court result in a report by the judge concerned; on this basis that the Head of court can undertake certain actions to speed up the proceeding (Maribor, Slovenia). The court president can take the necessary measures to cope with enquiries or complaints showing that a proceeding is too slow, including reassigning the case to another judge (Norway). Complaints system enabling the parties to complain about a judge to the Supervisory Council for Judges (Norway). Possibility of disciplinary procedure for a judge who doe not adjudicate the case in due time (Latvia)			Parties can set a request to the Court of Appeal fixing a time limit for special parts of proceedings, if they believe the judge’s activities are not on time (Austria).
PROCEDURES		State policies			Court policies			Judge’s practices
Line of Action 8: Acting on the number of cases dealt with by the court by ensuring an appropriate use of appeals and other applications.		Possibility and scope for an appeal depends on the value in litigation (Austria). [from line 10]			Vetting system in second instance for criminal cases: when the High Court receives the appeals sparked by the District Court’s criminal judgments, the more serious cases are qualified for appeal proceedings, whilst the less serious go through a preliminary vetting process by three judges. (Norway)
Line of Action 9: Acting on quality of proceedings.		Time-limit for preparation of a written judgment set by the law (criminal cases: 10 days, civil cases: 30 days) (Czech Republic) Forbidding sine die postponement of cases – even in second instance (Maribor – Slovenia)			Targets (number of pages, standard format etc) for the judicial decisions (in particular for criminal cases) and systematic approach in judgements (Norway): Continuous work within the court to build awareness and motivate judges to write brief and precise judgements (Norway). Large parts of the case preparations in civil cases are done electronically, which also helps to reduce the processing times (Norway). Definition of fixed part of judicial decisions supplemented with parts for individual reasoning (Austria). New office automation system, legal information and stenotype machines (Cyprus). Computerised online correction of written pages, for decision writing (Austria). IT integrated system for registering time limits, which ensures a continuous monitoring of all cases and the time for processing each case; such a system prevents long queuing times. (Denmark).			Lead Judge monitoring the processing of criminal cases: prepares the cases personally, assisted by a judge who has been given this task on a permanent basis. If one of them is absent, the other takes over automatically (Norway).
Line of Action 10: Defining priorities in case management.		Simple cases that can be scheduled quickly get some degree of priority; priority also given to cases promoted by the legislator (Norway)			Courts divided in units of 2 – 3 judges who can share the amount of work according to the complexity of cases (Sweden). Several criminal cases scheduled in a day; prosecutors swap cases among themselves to enable a re-scheduling of the order of cases (Norway). Computer system assigns cases to individual judges according to time schedule (Czech Republic).			A judge can be relieved from all other cases if the difficulty of one case requires it (Austria). Number of judges increased according to the number of criminal cases (Bulgaria).
Line of Action 11: Organising trials to reduce waiting time, while paying special attention to victims and witnesses.		The Prosecution Service and lawyers are bound to call witnesses according to a prepared time schedule (Denmark). Setting up of a witness support mechanism (Denmark).			Witnesses are invited to appear at different times at the hearing (Austria). In civil cases lawyers will call their witnesses and decide when they will appear; in criminal cases, prosecutors call witnesses and set the attendance times (Norway). Victims often have a specially appointed assistant counsel, who looks after the practicalities of attendance, in consultation with the Prosecution Service and court. (Norway).
Line of Action 13: Making more flexible the rules on territorial jurisdiction of first instance courts.					A case destined for another venue, is sent to the proper jurisdiction, with a copy of the transfer sent to the submitting party.  The routine for quickly identifying the case that has been wrongly sent lies first of all with the judge on duty to monitor incoming post and new cases (Norway).

STAKEHOLDERS	State policies	Court policies	Judge’s practices
Line of Action 14: Involving the relevant categories in the administration of the courts.		Regular meetings of the court staff to increase the esprit de corps within the court; reduction of the gap between judges and officials – now called case handlers – towards a shared goal (Norway).
Line of Action 15: Developing the training of judges and prosecutors and, more generally, all the professions concerned.		Training of admin. staff (Bulgaria). Training and selection of judges with due regards to court administration and the quality of proceedings (Germany). Continuous work within the court to build awareness and motivate judges to write brief and precise judgements (Norway).
Line of Action 16: Setting up "contracts of objective" between courts and lawyers – Organising the relationships with lawyers.		Close contacts with attorneys: joint establishment of clerking rules for the court (Norway). Negotiations and discussions between judges and local lawyers to set up common opinions and guidelines on how to improve efficiency of justice as regards the time of procedure. (Finland). Guidelines for case handling set up in writing and signed by the Bar Association and the court, resulting from common discussions and consensus (Norway). Continued dialogue between the courts and the lawyers and prosecutors (Norway).
Line of Action 17: Improving the monitoring of compliance with the time-limits by judicial experts.	The statutory Forensic Medicine Commission advises the courts and expert witnesses in forensic issues in criminal cases: all forensic statements must be sent to the Commission before disclosure in a court; the Commission checks that the work performed is within a good professional framework; the Commission is also concerned that these statements should not take excessive time - 45 days as a limit. (Norway).	Use of electronic correspondence (Austria). Fine imposed by the court to any expert who does not respect the deadlines defined while appointing the expert (Czech Republic).	Limits decided by the judges for the experts (Austria). Appointment of expert witnesses with systematic simultaneous stipulation of clear time limits for delivering their work, monitored by the court (Norway).
Line of Action 18: Involving judicial professions in the efforts towards optimum and foreseeable timeframes.		Quasi judicial tasks given to non judges (Rechtspfleger) (Austria). Judges free from performing simple administrative acts (requests to pay judicial fees, requests to supplement statements and designation of the evidence) (Czech Republic). Regular gatherings of all court staff to discuss new measures or change existing measures, which may result in more efficient court operation (Norway). Extensive use of legal students who participate in court as court witnesses and minutes’ keepers: clerks get much more time to do their processing work (Norway). Increased number of clerks, secretaries and assistant judge to prepare the cases so that the judge can focus on the more difficult and extensive cases (Sweden).
Line of Action 5: Developing information and communication strategies.	Every four years a survey of the satisfaction of both users and legal professionals takes place (Netherlands). 3 public surveys per year– Holders of Charter Mark, i.e. achieving a level of excellence in customer service gauged through consumer satisfaction surveys (United Kingdom). Surveys carried out by the media (Cyprus). Study by the National Research Institute of Legal Policy (Finland)	The Danish Courts effect users’ surveys on a regular basis: each district court hands out questionnaires to users (e.g. lawyers, parties prosecutors, witnesses in civil cases; defendants and witnesses in criminal cases); the answers are analysed by a management firm, and a general national result is published (Denmark). Survey to criminal victims, lawyers, victims and prosecutors (Sweden). Several courts organise regular meetings with the lawyers and the prosecutors (Germany, Finland). The Spanish pilot court has organised a complaint mail box which is monitored by the court administration (Spain). In Norway, a specific training session has been organised where Chief judges addressed the relationships with the users of the court and explored their level of satisfaction with the court (Norway). Published list of cases to be addressed by the court in the current and next weeks (Latvia) Court officer in charge of answering by phone and by individual discussions to the question of the users of justice (Lativa). Publication of the statistics on the Court Web site, including the length of each case (Albania).

Pilot Court Card: Norway

TIMEFRAMES	State policies	Court policies	Judge’ s practices
Line of Action 3: Improving the foreseeability of the timeframes.	Average length of proceedings proposed by the Ministry of Justice with consent from the Parliament. Statutory maximum timeframes (limits) for certain type of cases (ex. custody cases: 8 weeks for the appeal for the hearing to start).
Line of Action 3: Transparency of timeframes for the users.		Parties informed of when they can expect the judgement to be pronounced when the appeal hearing is concluded; if this proves to be untenable, then the delay is notified to the lawyer with new date for pronouncement
Line of Action 3: Enforcement of timeframes.		Regular analyses of the pending cases by the court president.   Judges’ portfolios surveyed every month; lengths of proceedings monitored and evaluated with statistical measures as a routine, at least every third month.
Line of Action 4: Defining and monitoring standards for an optimum timeframes for each type of case.	When a court is extraordinarily burdened by specific cases, sitting judges or extraordinary judges are appointed to this court.
Line of Action 7: Allowing adjustment of timeframes.		At appeal level, simultaneous letters sent to both counsels, which state the deadlines for new submissions, evidential lists and input on time and place for the appeal proceeding (counsels are asked if a given number of days are sufficient for the hearing and whether a given location is suitable); letters are followed by telephone calls from the court administration to decide on the date and duration of the hearing: when the preparation of the case starts, it is clear to everyone when the matter will come up. Informal case preparatory conferences with the prosecutors for the most complex cases to discuss the scope of the evidence presentation, how the evidences should be presented, the need to appoint expert witnesses, […] how a reasonable and realistic timing schedule will appear, etc.	A week or two before the appeal hearing, the judge contacts the counsel directly (e-mail) and orders them to prepare a detailed joint timetable for the appeal hearing (presentation of witnesses, etc); he/she also orders them to bring with them concrete arguments pleading for presentation at the appeal hearing. This alone is a real time-saver: obliges the counsels to talk to each other and agree on the practical arrangements; induces them to highlight their points, and thus avoids irrelevant and immaterial issues.
Line of Action 12: Setting up a procedure to revive a pending case.		The court president can take the necessary measures to cope with enquiries or complaints showing that a proceeding is too slow, including reassigning the case to another judge. Complaints system enabling the parties to complain about a judge to the Supervisory Council for Judges.
PROCEDURES	State policies	Court policies	Judge’s practices
Line of Action 8: Acting on the number of cases dealt with by the court by ensuring an appropriate use of appeals and other applications.		Vetting system in second instance for criminal cases: when the High Court receives the appeals sparked by the District Court’s criminal judgments, the more serious cases are qualified for appeal proceedings, whilst the less serious go through a preliminary vetting process by three judges.
Line of Action 9: Acting on quality of proceedings.		Targets (number of pages, standard format etc) for the judicial decisions (in particular for criminal cases) and systematic approach in judgements. Continuous work within the court to build awareness and motivate judges to write brief and precise judgements. Large parts of the case preparations in civil cases are done electronically, which also helps to reduce the processing times.	Lead Judge monitoring the processing of criminal cases: prepares the cases personally, assisted by a judge who has been given this task on a permanent basis. If one of them is absent, the other takes over automatically.
Line of Action 10: Defining priorities in case management.	Simple cases that can be scheduled quickly get some degree of priority; priority also given to cases promoted by the legislator (Norway)	Several criminal cases scheduled in a day; prosecutors swap cases among themselves to enable a re-scheduling of the order of cases.
Line of Action 11: Organising trials to reduce waiting time, while paying special attention to victims and witnesses.		In civil cases lawyers will call their witnesses and decide when they will appear; in criminal cases, prosecutors call witnesses and set the attendance times. Victims often have a specially appointed assistant counsel, who looks after the practicalities of attendance, in consultation with the Prosecution Service and court.
Line of Action 13: Making more flexible the rules on territorial jurisdiction of first instance courts.		A case destined for another venue, is sent to the proper jurisdiction, with a copy of the transfer sent to the submitting party.  The routine for quickly identifying the case that has been wrongly sent lies first of all with the judge on duty to monitor incoming post and new cases.
STAKEHOLDERS	State policies	Court policies	Judge’s practices
Line of Action 14: Involving the relevant categories in the administration of the courts.		Regular meetings of the court staff to increase the esprit de corps within the court; reduction of the gap between judges and officials – now called case handlers – towards a shared goal.
Line of Action 15: Developing the training of judges and prosecutors and, more generally, all the professions concerned.		Continuous work within the court to build awareness and motivate judges to write brief and precise judgements.
Line of Action 16: Setting up "contracts of objective" between courts and lawyers – Organising the relationships with lawyers.		Close contacts with attorneys: joint establishment of clerking rules for the court. Guidelines for case handling set up in writing and signed by the Bar Association and the court, resulting from common discussions and consensus. Continued dialogue between the courts and the lawyers and prosecutors.
Line of Action 17: Improving the monitoring of compliance with the time-limits by judicial experts.	The statutory Forensic Medicine Commission advises the courts and expert witnesses in forensic issues in criminal cases: all forensic statements must be sent to the Commission before disclosure in a court; the Commission checks that the work performed is within a good professional framework; the Commission is also concerned that these statements should not take excessive time - 45 days as a limit.		Appointment of expert witnesses with systematic simultaneous stipulation of clear time limits for delivering their work, monitored by the court.
Line of Action 18: Involving judicial professions in the efforts towards optimum and foreseeable timeframes.		Regular gatherings of all court staff to discuss new measures or change existing measures, which may result in more efficient court operation.   Extensive use of legal students who participate in court as court witnesses and minutes’ keepers: clerks get much more time to do their processing work.
Line of Action 5: Developing information and communication strategies.		In Norway, a specific training session has been organised where Chief judges addressed the relationships with the users of the court and explored their level of satisfaction with the court.

Pilot Court Card: Austria

TIMEFRAMES	State policies	Court policies	Judge’ s practices
Line of Action 3: Improving the foreseeability of the timeframes.
Line of Action 3: Transparency of timeframes for the users.
Line of Action 3: Enforcement of timeframes.			IT based checklist of registered cases for more than 3 months, handed monthly to the court president, the judges concerned and their secretaries. Systematic and regular reporting by the individual judges on the cases for which a decision has not been delivered for more than 2 months.
Line of Action 4: Defining and monitoring standards for an optimum timeframes for each type of case.			Limits decided by the judges for the experts.
Line of Action 7: Allowing adjustment of timeframes.
Line of Action 12: Setting up a procedure to revive a pending case.			Parties can set a request to the Court of Appeal fixing a time limit for special parts of proceedings, if they believe the judge’s activities are not on time.
PROCEDURES	State policies	Court policies	Judge’s practices
Line of Action 8: Acting on the number of cases dealt with by the court by ensuring an appropriate use of appeals and other applications.	Possibility and scope for an appeal depends on the value in litigation.
Line of Action 9: Acting on quality of proceedings.		Definition of fixed part of judicial decisions supplemented with parts for individual reasoning. Computerised online correction of written pages, for decision writing.
Line of Action 10: Defining priorities in case management.			A judge can be relieved from all other cases if the difficulty of one case requires it.
Line of Action 11: Organising trials to reduce waiting time, while paying special attention to victims and witnesses.		Witnesses are invited to appear at different times at the hearing.
Line of Action 13: Making more flexible the rules on territorial jurisdiction of first instance courts.
STAKEHOLDERS	State policies	Court policies	Judge’s practices
Line of Action 14: Involving the relevant categories in the administration of the courts.
Line of Action 15: Developing the training of judges and prosecutors and, more generally, all the professions concerned.
Line of Action 16: Setting up "contracts of objective" between courts and lawyers – Organising the relationships with lawyers.
Line of Action 17: Improving the monitoring of compliance with the time-limits by judicial experts.		Use of electronic correspondence.	Limits decided by the judges for the experts.
Line of Action 18: Involving judicial professions in the efforts towards optimum and foreseeable timeframes.		Quasi judicial tasks given to non judges.
Line of Action 5: Developing information and communication strategies.