Strasbourg, 12 June 2004 CEPEJ (2003) 38 rev 2
adopted by the CEPEJ
at its 3rd plenary meeting
(Strasbourg, 9-11 June 2004)
Results
1) Adoption of the pilot scheme for evaluating European judicial systems;
2) Finalisation of a “picture” of the situation in Europe as regards length of proceedings;
3) Celebration of the first European Day of Civil Justice;
4) Study session on “Justice: serving citizens”;
5) Netherlands: finalisation of a report on territorial jurisdiction which will become one of the elements of the policy programme for a more efficient justice system in The Netherlands;
6) Switzerland: finalisation of a report on mediation, which is part of the judicial procedure reform in Switzerland.
Introduction
The Council of Europe has been working for over 50 years on question relating to the efficiency and fairness of justice. The case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and the numerous international instruments adopted by the Committee of Ministers constitute a corpus juris which should inspire national governments and parliaments when devising and implementing law reforms. The Committee of Ministers has carried out a monitoring procedure on the functioning of the judicial system which has highlighted the various issues at stake in this area in the various members States. Moreover, during the 23st Conference of European Ministers of Justice (London, June 2000) the Ministers engaged on a far-reaching programme to improve the functioning and increase the efficiency of justice in Europe. It is against this background that the Committee of Ministers set up, through Resolution Res (2002)12, the CEPEJ. The CEPEJ began operating in February 2003. Its aim is to improve the efficiency and the functioning of judicial procedures in the member states, and to develop the implementation of the relevant instruments drafted by the Council of Europe to this end.
Its tasks are as follows:
a) examine the results achieved by the different judicial systems, in the light of the principles set out in the preamble to the resolution establishing the CEPEJ, using common statistical criteria and means of evaluation;
b) identify problems and areas for possible improvements and hold exchanges of views on the functioning of judicial systems;
c) identify concrete ways of improving the measurement and functioning of member states’ judicial systems, having regard to the specific needs of each country;
d) provide assistance to one or more member states, at their request, including assistance in complying with Council of Europe standards;
e) suggest, if appropriate, areas in which the relevant steering committees of the Council of Europe, in particular the European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ), may, if they consider it necessary, draft new international legal instruments or amendments to existing ones, for adoption by the Committee of Ministers.
The CEPEJ fulfils its tasks by:
a) identifying and developing indicators, collecting and analysing quantitative and qualitative data, and defining measures and means of evaluation;
b) drawing up reports, statistics, best practice surveys, guidelines, action plans, opinions and general comments;
c) establishing links with research institutes and documentation and study centres;
d) inviting to participate in its work, on a case-by-case-basis, any qualified person, specialist or non-governmental organisation active in its field of competence and capable of helping it in the fulfilment of its objectives, and by holding hearings;
creating networks of professionals involved in the justice area.
The CEPEJ is also a privileged forum for discussion with the civil society on justice issues.
The functioning of the CEPEJ is governed by Resolution Res (2002) 12 establishing it, and adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 18 September 2002 at the 808th meeting of Ministers’ Deputies and amended on 19 March 2003 at the 832nd meeting of Ministers’ Deputies.
I. Nature of the report
This is the general activity report of the CEPEJ for 2003. Under Article 7 paragraph 6 of Resolution Res (2002) 12 establishing the CEPEJ and under Title III Article 11 of its Rules of Procedure, it is to be submitted to the Committee of Ministers following examination by the Bureau and adoption by the first meeting of the CEPEJ in 2004.
II. Statute of the CEPEJ
The European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) was set up on 18 September 2002 by
Resolution Res (2002)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. Its statute appears in
Appendix 1 to Resolution Res (2002)12.
III. Composition
It is made up of experts from the 45 member states of the Council of Europe. Each member appoints its delegation in accordance with Article 5 of the CEPEJ Statute. Observers may be admitted to its meetings. The European Union also participates in its work. States which have observer status with the Council of Europe are automatically entitled to observer status with the CEPEJ. Such status may likewise be conferred on any other states which so request. The Hague Conference on Private International Law and the World Bank have observer status with the CEPEJ; in the case of the European Union of Rechtspfleger (EUR), the International Union of Juridical Officers (UIHJ), the European Association of Judges and the Council of the Bars and Law Societies of the European Union (CCBE), the CEPEJ has decided to admit these as observers, for a renewable 1-year term, by holding hearings of limited duration at the start of each CEPEJ plenary meeting. Other (national) organizations representing representing legal professionals have also expressed an interest in following closely the work of the CEPEJ.
IV. Representatives of CEPEJ members
The list of representatives appointed by member states for the first two plenary meetings appears in Appendix I.
V. Meetings
The CEPEJ held two plenary meetings in 2003 (both in Strasbourg):
CEPEJ 1 (5-7 February 2003)
CEPEJ 2 (3-5 December 2003).
The CEPEJ Bureau met twice in 2003:
Bureau 1 (24 March, Paris)
Bureau 2 (3 November, Brussels).
Le Bureau consists of the following members:
Mr E. DESCH (Germany) Chair
Mr A. POTOCKI (France) Vice-Chair
Mr A. UZELAC (Croatia)
Mr P. ALBERS (Netherlands).
VI. Working Parties
The CEPEJ set up two working parties in 2003:
Working Party no. 1 of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ-GT1): “Definition of common tools for the evaluation of judicial systems”
Composition:
Mr Pim ALBERS (the Netherlands)
Ms Maria João COSTA (Portugal)
Mr Fausto DE SANTIS (Italy)
Ms Beata GRUSZCZYNSKA (Poland)
Mr Hazel GENN (United Kingdom)
Mr Jean-Paul JEAN (France)
The 6-member Working Party no. 1 of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ-GT1) was set up to define common tools enabling states, as well as interested international institutions (such as the European Court of Human Rights) to evaluate in an objective manner the functioning of member states’ judicial systems, bearing in mind the need to determine concrete indicators that reflect the expectations of users of the justice system. Their work was facilitated by a paper prepared by Mr Pim Albers. (The Netherlands)
Two meetings were held:
1st meeting
26-27 June 2003, Strasbourg
2nd meeting
2-3 October 2003, Strasbourg
Composition:
Mr Alan UZELAC (Croatia)
Ms Miroslava Stefanova TODOROVA (Bulgaria)
Mr Loukis SAVVIDES (Cyprus)
Ms Barbara GOETH-FLEMMICH (Austria)
Mr Jon T. JOHNSEN (Norway)
Ms Monique COSSALI SAUVAIN (Switzerland)
The 6-member Working Party no. 2 of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ-GT2) was set up to examine the following reports:
“Users of the justice system vis-à-vis the slowness of justice: how to react?”. Report on divorce by Ms Gabriela Thoma-Twaroch (Austria)
Study on victim protection. Contribution from Romania
submitted by Mr Ion POPA, Romania, member of the CEPEJ
Divorce proceedings. Contribution from Romania
submitted by Mr Ion POPA, Romania, member of the CEPEJ
Delay in judicial proceedings: a preliminary inquiry into the relationship between the reasonable time requirements of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and their consequences for judges and judicial administration in the civil, criminal and administrative courts. Preliminary draft report by Mr Marco FABRI (Italy) and Mr Philip LANGBROEK (the Netherlands)
Victims of crime. Report by Ms Helen REEVES (United Kingdom)
Steps taken by the Supreme Court of Cyprus to eliminate delays. Contribution by Mr Loukis Savvides (Cyprus), member of the CEPEJ
A meeting was held on 2-3 October 2003, Strasbourg
Preliminary remarks
Having regard to Resolution Res(2002)12, the CEPEJ is aware that its sphere of action with regard to the functioning and efficiency of justice is extremely wide. In 2003, however, owing to limited time and resources and in the interest of pragmatism, the CEPEJ decided to focus on two topics which are of concern to all states and which have a common feature in that they both help to bring justice as close as possible to individuals and their problems.
I – Implementation of the basic principles and rules concerning the efficiency of justice[1]
A – Topics of common concern to all states
1 – “Definition of common tools for evaluating judicial systems”.
The CEPEJ finalised the “pilot scheme for evaluating European countries’ judicial systems”. For the first time, it will thus be possible to form an objective, comparative picture, based on criteria agreed by the states, of the functioning of European judicial systems. The new scheme will also help to identify concrete indicators that reflect the expectations of users of the justice system.
The scheme will be used in 2004, following approval by the Committee of Ministers. It may also prove helpful in the functioning of the European Court of Human Rights and, in particular, in the execution of ECHR judgments.
2 – “Users of the justice system vis-à-vis the slowness of justice: how to remedy? Two symbolic situations”.
The excessive length of proceedings is considered by many to be one of the main obstacles to proper, effective functioning of the justice system.
To begin with, therefore, the CEPEJ sought to form a picture of the situation in Europe as regards the length of proceedings.
In 2004, the CEPEJ will use this picture to develop a blueprint with practical suggestions to help states speed up judicial procedures, while bearing in mind the need to ensure a high-quality justice system.
The CEPEJ will operate on two fronts, legal and political, and will consider firstly how to reduce delays and secondly how to manage them.
B – Action for particular countries or in specific cases (for details of how this co-operation works in practice, see the CEPEJ Statute and Title II of the draft Rules of Procedure)
The Netherlands: the CEPEJ has prepared a report on “territorial jurisdiction”, focusing more specifically on the following issues:
1) What mechanisms can be identified to allocate cases between courts?
2) What is the optimal size of a court (for handling cases efficiently)?
What are the pros and cons of creating specialised courts?
3) What are the effects of selective forum-shopping by parties on the functioning of the judicial system? (See document CEPEJ (2003) 8).
The finalised CEPEJ report will become one of the elements of the policy programme for a more efficient justice system in the Netherlands.
These activities contribute to the good functioning of justice and have a concrete impact on legal reform in members States both those concerned by the activity and the others which will be able to draw useful guidelines from the recommendations.
Switzerland: the CEPEJ prepared a report on mediation, in which the following questions were asked:
1) Are there legal provisions in your country (eg in the criminal or civil procedure codes) which specifically deal with mediation? If so, please describe them. If not, on what basis is mediation practised in your country?
2) What is the practical experience of mediation in your country and/or jurisdiction?
3) How much does mediation cost (both the State and the individuals concerned)? Are the costs justified in relation to the results achieved?
4) What, in your opinion, are the positive and negative sides of mediation?
5) Would you advise a country that has not yet done so to set up a mediation system? Should this be based on legal provisions contained in the criminal and/or civil procedure codes?
6) Do you consider mediation to be a useful tool for delivering justice?
The report, which is part of the judicial procedure reform in Switzerland and which has been finalised by the CEPEJ, could be discussed at a meeting of Swiss experts and Council of Europe experts, once the process of consulting the various relevant bodies in Switzerland is complete.
II – Co-operation with other bodies
A – Council of Europe bodies
1. European Court of Human Rights
The European Court of Human Rights participates in the CEPEJ’s work on a regular basis. Its President, Mr L. Wildhaber, published a statement expressing his support during the celebrations to mark European Day Civil Justice (EDCJ).
2. Parliamentary Assembly
The Parliamentary Assembly attends CEPEJ meetings on a regular basis and was represented by Ms Lili NABHOLZ-HAIDEGGER, Vice-Chair of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, and Mr Kevin Mc NAMARA, member of the Assembly. The Parliamentary Assembly welcomed the setting up of the CEPEJ and expressed interest in following closely its work
3. European Committee on legal co-operation (CDCJ)
The CDCJ has observer Statue within the CEPEJ and regularly attends its meeting. Both the CDCJ and the CEPEJ have in common activities which aim at improving the efficiency of justice (including e-justice) in States. Moreover, while the CDCJ carries out a standard-setting role, the CEPEJ is rather concerned with an “after-sales service” of the legal instruments adopted by the Committee of Ministers in the area of justice and with an evaluation of justice systems’ performances.
4. Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH)
The CDDH has observer status with the CEPEJ and regularly attends its meetings. The CEPEJ has observer status with the DH-PR (Committee of Experts for the Improvement of Procedures for the Protection of Human Rights) and is more especially involved in the work on ECHR reform.
5. Department for the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, Directorate General II – Human Rights
The scheme finalised by the CEPEJ, and the benefits arising from its implementation, could be of use to this Department in its work.
The CEPEJ likewise decided to act on the decision adopted by the Ministers’ Deputies at their 864th meeting on 4 December 2003 (item 10.2), to ask "the CEPEJ to ensure the preparation of an assessment report on the effectiveness effectiveness of national justice systems in their responses to terrorism, in consultation with the CODEXTER".
B – Outside bodies
European Commission (see III.C)
III – Relations with civil society
Justice system should primarily aim at protecting Human Rights, promoting the Rule of law and serving citizens. In this context, legal professionals have a crucial role to play. The CEPEJ followed the suggestion of the Committee of Ministers to strengthen relations with the civil society, through such events as the EDCJ, which stimulate exchange of information between the civil society, legal professionals and the CEPEJ. Two NGO’s have also sent statements on the functioning of justice in two members States to the CEPEJ.
A - Conferences
A one-day study session was held by the CEPEJ in co-operation with the United Kingdom on “Justice: serving citizens”. The session was held in Strasbourg on 2 December 2003 and was open to all members of the CEPEJ, in the presence of outside speakers. At the end of the session, participants expressed an interest, inter alia, in drafting a charter of rights for users of the justice system within the Council of Europe and in looking for ways to enable citizens to participate in the functioning of justice.
B – Documentation
The following will be available on the CEPEJ website (www.coe.int/cepej):
- bibliographical references, national publications and/or links to internet sites of relevance to the CEPEJ;
- publications in the CEPEJ series on topics chosen by the CEPEJ. These are also available in hard-copy form.
The CEPEJ has produced a publication on “Councils for the Judiciary in EU Countries” Prof. Wim Voermans and Dr Pim Albers.
C – European Day of Civil Justice
On 5 June 2003, the Ministers' Deputies at their 842nd meeting agreed to declare a European Day of Civil Justice to be held during the last week of October of each year and instructed the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) to prepare a draft organisational charter for this Day. This draft charter was drawn up by an ad hoc working group consisting of Mr G. NAGY (Hungary) and Mr P. DURO (Portugal), both members of the CEPEJ, and of members of the CEPEJ secretariat and a representative of the European Commission. The draft charter was adopted by the CEPEJ at its 2nd plenary meeting (3-5 December 2003).
There being an urgent need to act together to bring justice closer to citizens, the draft charter builds on the desire to facilitate access to justice for all, as expressed by the European Council at the Tampere meeting. It is also a follow-up to the recommendations of the European Ministers of Justice who, at their 23rd Conference in London, in June 2000, invited the Committee of Ministers in particular to promote citizens’ awareness of their rights and to provide citizens with the information they need to be able to exercise their rights confidently. The idea of a European Day of Civil Justice was first launched during the European Conference “Towards a better access to justice for citizens” held in Brussels in October 2002. The initiative received a warm welcome from all the states represented at the first meeting of the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ).
Following the statement by Commissioner Vitorino, dated 16 May 2003, the European Commission endorsed this initiative to be carried out jointly with the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe and the European Commission will have the task of promoting initiatives and ensuring that the activities organised match the objectives of the Day. Among the many activities that could be organised within the framework of the European Day of Civil Justice, states and/or interested bodies could choose to organise or implement:
- open days at civil courts or other relevant bodies including guided tours (as well as the judicial world, this would enable visitors to discover the cultural and architectural heritage);
- mock trials;
- meetings with legal professionals – judges, lawyers, bailiffs, notaries and individuals;
- local conferences (to explain the programmes concerning access to justice for those with limited means, for example);
- production of specific information material;
- awareness-raising initiatives for children and young people.
Law faculties could be involved in organising these events.
a) The first European Day of Civil Justice was launched on Saturday 18 October 2003 in Budapest. During this first Day, the Supreme Court of Hungary opened its doors to the public. The event was a major success. Around 150 people (judges, lawyers, students, members of the public) came to listen to the exposés given by Hungarian officials on topics related to the justice system, be it the recent legislative changes or presentations of various legal professions. In the main hall of the Supreme Court, participants could obtain literature and information from the Council of Europe, European Commission and various legal publishing house stands, which attracted large numbers of visitors. The Council of Europe Secretariat and the judge appointed in respect of Hungary to the European Court of Human Rights were given a warm welcome by the President of the Supreme Court and met a number of prominent members of the Hungarian judicial community.
b) Other days took place in Austria, Italy, France, Germany, Latvia, Malta, and “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”.
Details of these days can be found on the CEPEJ website, www.coe.int/cepej.
VIII. Budget and programme
The Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers adopted the CEPEJ budget when approving the Council’s ordinary budget.
At its 2nd plenary meeting in December 2003, the CEPEJ adopted its programme of activity for 2004, as set out in document CEPEJ (2003) 29 rev.
IX. Elections
The CEPEJ elected Mr E. DESCH (Germany) Chair, and Mr A. POTOCKI (France) Vice-Chair. In addition, Mr A. UZELAC (Croatia) and Mr P. ALBERS (Netherlands) were appointed members of the Bureau.
X. Information on the CEPEJ, including reports
It is possible to find bibliographical references, national publications and/or links to internet sites of relevance to the CEPEJ and publications produced in the CEPEJ series on chosen topics. The latter are also available in hard-copy form.
In time, this site should become a fully-fledged tool for all those working to promote the efficiency of justice in Europe. The idea of creating a “discussion form” is worth retaining, therefore, even if it is not technically feasible at present. One option available today is to identify specific ways of managing the electronic mailbox that would enable us to offer similar services to those of a discussion list. The introduction of an electronic newsletter, using Word and/or Publisher, is also being discussed.
For more information:
WWW.COE.INT/CEPEJ
Appendix I
MEMBRES DE LA CEPEJ EN 2003 / MEMBERS OF CEPEJ IN 2003
(1) = participation in the 1st plenary meeting
(2) = participation in the 2nd plenary meeting
ALBANIA/ALBANIE
Alma KASA, Adjointe au Représentant Permanent, Représentation Permanente de l’Albanie auprès du Conseil de l’Europe, STRASBOURG (1) / Ksenofon KRISAFI, Adviser to the Prime Minister, TIRANA (2)
ANDORRA/ANDORRE
Carme OBIOLS, Secrétaire Générale, Conseil supérieur de la Justice, ANDORRA LA VELLA (1,2)
ARMENIA/ARMENIE
Armen SANOYAN, First degree consultant, Department of International legal, Relations Ministry of Justice, YEREVAN (1,2)
AUSTRIA/AUTRICHE
Barbara GÖTH, Deputy Head of Division, VIENNA (1,2) / Thomas GOTTWALD, Judge, Project Manager Assistant, Ministry of Justice, VIENNA (2)
AZERBAIJAN/AZERBAIDJAN
Chingiz GASIMOV, Director of Department of Organisation and Analysis, Ministry of Justice, BAKU (1,2)
BELGIUM/BELGIQUE
Christian DE VEL, Premier Président à la Cour d’Appel d’Anvers (Chef de Délégation/Head of Delegation), ANVERS (1) / Meryem DEMIR, Conseiller adjoint, Service Public Fédéral Justice, BRUXELLES (1,2)
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA/BOSNIE-HERZEGOVINE: Excusée/Apologised
BULGARIA/BULGARIE
Galina TONEVA-DACHEVA, Judge, Appeal Court of Sofia, SOFIA (1,2) / Miroslava TODOKOVA, Judge, Vice-Chair of Sofia Regional court, SOFIA (2)
CROATIA/CROATIE
Alan UZELAC, Ph.D. Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb, ZAGREB, Member of the Bureau/ Membre du Bureau (1,2)
CYPRUS/CHYPRE
Loukis SAVVIDES, Ex-Judge of the Supreme Court of Cyprus – Legal Consultant, LIMASSOL (1)
CZECH REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
Petr LANDKAMMER, Director of the IT Department, Ministry of Justice, PRAHA (1) / Ivana BORZOVÁ, Head, Department of Civil Supervision, Ministry of Justice, PRAHA (2) / Jana WURSTOVA, Head, International Department, Czech Bar Association, PRAHA (2)
DENMARK/DANEMARK
Henrik HASSERIS OLESEN, Deputy Director General, Danish Court Administration, COPENHAGUEN (1) / Klaus RUGAARD, Chief Consultant, Domstolsstyrelsen Økonomikontoret, København (2)
ESTONIA/ESTONIE
Margus SARAPUU, Deputy Undersecretary of the Ministry of Justice, Department of Courts, Ministry of Justice, TALLINN (1,2)
FINLAND/FINLANDE
Asko VÄLIMAA, Counsellor of Legislation, Ministry of Justice, HELSINKI (1) / Kari Samuli KIESILÄINEN, Director General, Head of the Department of Judicial Adminsitration, Ministry of Justice, HELSINKI (2)
FRANCE
André POTOCKI, Président de Chambre à la Cour d’Appel de Paris, PARIS, Vice – Chair of the CEPEJ / Vice-Président de la CEPEJ (1, 2)
GEORGIA/GEORGIE
Lasha CHELIDZE, General Representative of Georgia to the European court of Human Rights, Ministry of Justice, TBILISSI (1,2)
GERMANY/ALLEMAGNE
Eberhard DESCH, Head of Division of International Law, Bundesministerium der Justiz, BERLIN, Chair of the CEPEJ / Président de la CEPEJ (1,2) / Matthias HEGER, Chef du Service de Procédure civile internationale, Ministère fédéral de la Justice, BERLIN (1,2)
GREECE/GRECE
Theodoros APOSTOLOPOULOS, Membre de la Cour suprême de Grèce, GALATSI – ATHENES (1,2)
HUNGARY/HONGRIE
Gabor NAGY, Référendaire, Directeur du Bureau des Droits de l’Homme à la Cour Suprême de Hongrie, BudapesT (1,2)
ICELAND/ISLANDE : Excusée/Apologised
IRELAND/IRLANDE
Liz DONOVAN, Administrative Officer, Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, 72-76 St. Stephen’s Green, DUBLIN 2 (1) / Ciaran KELLY, Principal Registrar High Court, Courts Service, Four Courts, 15-24 Phoenix Street North, Smithfield,DUBLIN 7 (1,2) / Iarflaith O'NEILL, Judge, the High Court, Four Courts, DUBLIN (2) / David FENNEL, Expert, Departement of Justice, DUBLIN (2)
ITALY/ITALIE
Mario REMUS, Magistrat à la Cour de cassation, Ministère de la Justice, ROME (1, 2) / Enzo MERIGGIOLA, Membre de la direction du Centre électronique d’information, Cour de Cassation, ROME (2)
LATVIA/LETTONIE
Aija BRANTA, Judge, Supreme Court, RIGA (1,2)
LIECHTENSTEIN : Excusé /Apologised
LITHUANIA/LITUANIE
Egidijus BIELIŪNAS, Juge à la Cour pénale, VILNIUS (1,2)
LUXEMBOURG : Excusé/ Apologised
MALTA/MALTE
Victor ZAMMIT, Director, legal services, Courts of Justice, VALLETTA (1) / Audrienne SPITERI-GONZI, Head of the Office of Dispute Resolution (ODR), ADR Liaison, Ministry for Justice and Home Affairs, St VENERA (2)
MOLDOVA
Vitalie PARLOG, Head of the Government Agent and International Relations Department, Ministry of Justice, CHISINAU (1,2)
NETHERLANDS/PAYS‑BAS
Piet. H. HOLTHUIS, Director General for Legislation, Administration of Justice and Legal Aid, THE HAGUE (1) / Pim ALBERS, Senior Policy Advisor, Strategy Department for the Administration of Justice, Ministry of Justice, THE HAGUE, Member of the Bureau / Membre du Bureau (1,2)
NORWAY/NORVEGE
Steingrim BULL, Legal Adviser, Legislation Department, Ministry of Justice, OSLO (1) / Sissel ENDRESEN, Head of Judicial Department, National Courts Administration, TRONDHEIM (1, 2)
POLAND/POLOGNE
Tadeusz ERECINSKI, Professor of Law, President of the Supreme Court of Poland (Civil Chamber), WARSAW (1,2)
PORTUGAL
Pedro DURO, Deputy Director, Legal and Planning Office, Ministry of Justice, LISBONNE (1, 2)
ROMANIA/ROUMANIE
Ion POPA, Director, Direction of Organisation, Human Resources and Judiciary Statistics, Ministry of Justice, BUCAREST (1,2)
RUSSIA/RUSSIE
Yuri BERESTNEV, Directeur adjoint pour les questions de droit constitutionnel, Direction principale juridique du Président de la Fédération de Russie (GGPU), MOSCOW (1,2)
SAN‑MARINO/SAINT MARIN
Damiano BELEFFI, Représentant Permanent Adjoint, Chancellerie, STRASBOURG, France (1)
SLOVAK REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE SLOVAQUE
Igor BELKO, Judge of the Supreme Court, Advisor of the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Justice, BRATISLAVA (1,2)
SLOVENIA/SLOVENIE
Marko ŠORLI, Supreme Judge, Supreme Court, LJUBLJANA (1,2)
SPAIN/ESPAGNE
Caroline GARCĺA DURRIF, Judge and adviser for the Direction General for the Modernization of Justice, Ministry of Justice, MADRID (1)
SWEDEN/SUEDE
Anders LINDGREN, Deputy Director, Department for Procedural Law and Court Issues, Ministry of Justice, STOCKHOLM(1) / Johan SANGBORN, Legal Adviser, Department for Procedural Law and Court Issues, Ministry of Justice, STOCKHOLM (1,2)
SWITZERLAND/SUISSE
Frank SCHÜRMANN, Chef de service du droit de procédure pénale, Division principale du droit pénal et recours, Office Fédéral de la Justice, BERNE (1,2)
"THE FORMER YOUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"/"L'EX-REPUBLIQUE YOUGOSLAVE DE MACEDOINE"
Nada PENOVA, State Counselor, Ministry of Justice, SKOPJE (1,2)
TURKEY/TURQUIE
Abdülkadir KAYA, General Director, Turkish Ministry of Justice, ANKARA (1) / Mehlika AYTAÇ, Head of the Department of International Law and Foreign Relationships, Ministry of Justice, ANKARA (2) / Aydin Sefa AKAY, Conseiller juridique, Adjoint au Représentant Permanent, Représentation Permanente de Turquie, STRASBOURG (1,2)
UKRAINE
Oleksii STEPANOV, Director of the Office of State Secretary of Ukraine for European Integration, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, KYIV (1) / Oleksiy PEREVEZENTSEV, Chief Advisor, International Law and International Organisations Division, Foreign Policy Directorate, Administration of the President, KIYV (2)
UNITED KINGDOM/ROYAUME‑UNI
Richard MORTIMER, Head of Civil Issues Branch, Civil Justice and Legal Aid Directorate, Lord Chancellor’s Department, LONDON (1) / Edwin KILBY, Head of European Policy Unit, Department of Constitutional Affairs, LONDON
* * * * *
PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY/ASSEMBLEE PARLEMENTAIRE
Lili NABHOLZ-HAIDEGGER, Vice-Chairperson of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly / Vice-Présidente du Comité des questions juridiques et des droits de l’homme (1) / Kevin McNAMARA, Member of of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly / Membre du Comité des questions juridiques et des droits de l’homme (2)
COUR EUROPEENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME / EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Ireneu CABRAL BARRETO, Juge au titre du Portugal, Cour européenne des Droits de l’Homme (1) / Lawrence EARLY, Deputy Section 3 Registrar, Registry of the European Court of Human Rights/Greffier adjoint à la Section 3, Greffe de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (1,2)
Edwin KILBY, Legal Adviser, International Division, Lord Chancellor’s Department, LONDON (1) /
Caterina BOLOGNESE, Criminal Law Department, Secretariat of the CDPC, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs / Service des problèmes criminels, Secrétariat du CDPC, Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques (1)
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 (2)
* * * * *
EUROPEAN COMMISSION / COMMISSION EUROPEENNE
Maria José ROCHA DE GOUVEIA, Administrateur, DG JAI (1) / José ALEGRE SEOANE, Administrateur, DG JAI (2) / Katarzyna GRZYBOWSKA, DG JAI – Unité A-5 (2)
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION / CONSEIL DE L'UNION EUROPEENNE
Hans NILSSON, Head of Division DG H (1)
* * * * *
OBSERVERS / OBSERVATEURS
HOLY SEE/SAINT-SIEGE
Marc LEYENBERGER, Avocat au Barreau de Strasbourg,(1) / Odile GANGHOFER, Docteur en droit, STRASBOURG (2)
CANADA
Ivan WHITEHALL, QC, Chief General Counsel, Department of Justice, Office of the Chief General Counsel, OTTAWA, ONTARIO (1)
JAPAN/ JAPON
Naoki ONISHI, Consul, Consulat Général du Japon, STRASBOURG (1) / Itsuro TERADA, Director General, Judicial System Dept., Ministry of Justice, TOKYO, JAPAN (2) / The Honorable Koichi KIGASAWA, Judge of Nagoya District Court, TOKYO (2) / Naoyuki IWAI, Consul Général du Japon, Consulat Général du Japon, STRASBOURG, FRANCE (2)
MEXICO / MEXIQUE
Carlos SALAZAR, Observateur Permanent Adjoint auprès du Conseil de l’Europe, Bureau de l’Observateur Permanent du Mexique, STRASBOURG (1,2)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE
Mark RICHARD, Senior Counsellor for Criminal Justice Matters, US Mission to the European Union, BRUSSELS (1) / Michael TEIRNAN, Consul, American Consulate General, STRASBOURG, FRANCE (2)
BANQUE MONDIALE/WORLD BANK
Klaus DECKER (2)
APPENDIX II
(2003) 3 Rules of procedure
(2003) 6 Resolution (2002)12 establishing the Statute of the CEPEJ
(2003) 7 Relevant Council of Europe Recommandations
(2003)10 Add II Activity Programme 2003
(2003)10 Add III European Day of Civil Justice (EDCJ)
(2003) 12 Evaluating judicial system (by P. Albers)
(2003) 18 Consolidation version of the draft report on territorial jurisdiction for the Netherlands
(English only)
(2003) 19 “Users of the justice system vis-à-vis the slowness of justice : How to react ?” Report by
Thoma-Twaroch
(2003) 20 “Delay in judicial proceedings : a preliminary inquiry into the relation between the
demands of the reasonable time requirements of article 6, 1 ECHR and their
consequences for judges and judicial administration in the civil, criminal and
administrative justice chains”, Preliminary Draft Report by Mr Marco Fabri (Italy) and Mr
Philip M. Langbroek (The Netherlands)
(2003) 21 “The Users of the justice system vis-à-vis the slowness of justice: how to remedy ? Two
symbolic situations.” Victims of crime”, Report by Helen REEVES (United Kingdom)
(2003) 25 Report on mediation (only in English)
(2003) 30 The territorial distribution of jurisdiction in the Netherlands (P. Albers) (English only)
(2003) 31 The users of the justice system vis-à-vis the slowness of justice : how to remedy ? Two
symbolic situations; Victims of crime (English only)
(2003) 32 « La justice au service du citoyen » Rapport de Ph. Chételat (French only)
(2003) 33 “Administration as a service to citizens” Report by M. Cruz (English only)
(2003) 34 “What are the expectation and the needs of justice users – The experience of Polish ombudsman”, Report by R. Pelc (English only)
(2003) 35 Pilot Scheme of evaluating judicial systems
Publications
CEPEJ 2003 Councils for the Judiciairy in EU Countries, Prof. Wim Voermans and Dr Pim Albers
[1] In the light, inter alia, of the relevant resolutions and recommendations of the Committee of Ministers.