CEPEJ-TF-DEL (2005) 5 rev 3
Strasbourg, 17 March, 2006
European Commission for
the efficiency of justice
(CEPEJ)
Taskforce on Timeframes of Proceedings
(CEPEJ-TF-DEL)
NETWORK OF PILOT COURTS
Compendium of responses from the Pilot Courts
to the questionnaire on Timeframes of Proceedings
Table of Contents
Network of Pilot Courts (by member state)
Albania....................................................................................................................................... 5
(a) Tirana District Court.................................................................................................. 5
(b) First Instance Court of Serious Crimes.................................................................. 5
Andorra.................................................................................................................................... 11
Tribunal Superior De Justicia....................................................................................... 11
Republic of Armenia........................................................................................................... 20
Cour de premiere instance de l'arrondissement Malatya-Sebastya de Erevan... 20
Austria...................................................................................................................................... 27
Bezirksgericht Linz......................................................................................................... 27
Azerbaijan............................................................................................................................... 33
(a) Local Economic Court 1............................................................................................ 33
(b) Nasimi District Court............................................................................................... 35
Bulgaria................................................................................................................................... 37
District Court – Burgas.................................................................................................. 37
Republic of Croatia............................................................................................................. 43
Municipal Court of Varaždin......................................................................................... 43
Cyprus....................................................................................................................................... 49
Supreme Court of Cyprus............................................................................................... 49
Czech Republic...................................................................................................................... 57
District Court, Prague 1.................................................................................................. 57
Denmark.................................................................................................................................. 64
Retten I Esbjerg (District Court of Esbjerg)............................................................... 64
Finland..................................................................................................................................... 75
(a) The District Court of Turku.................................................................................... 75
(b) The Court of Appeal of Rovaniemi......................................................................... 77
(c) The Regional Administrative Court....................................................................... 79
France....................................................................................................................................... 95
(a) Tribunal de Grande Instance d'Angoulême......................................................... 95
(b) Tribunal de Grande Instance de Lyon................................................................... 95
Germany.................................................................................................................................. 96
Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart.......................................................................................... 96
Greece..................................................................................................................................... 102
(a) Cour d’Appel de Salonique...................................................................................... 102
(b) Tribunal de Premiere Instance d’Athenes......................................................... 104
Hungary................................................................................................................................. 106
Municipal Court of Veszprem...................................................................................... 106
Iceland.................................................................................................................................... 112
The district court of Reykjavik.................................................................................... 112
Ireland.................................................................................................................................... 116
Commercial Court......................................................................................................... 116
Italia........................................................................................................................................ 123
Tribunale Ordinario Di Torino................................................................................... 123
Latvia...................................................................................................................................... 136
Riga Central District Court.......................................................................................... 136
Lithuania............................................................................................................................... 144
(a) Vilnius County Court.............................................................................................. 144
(b) Vilnius Regional Administrative Court.............................................................. 150
Luxembourg......................................................................................................................... 156
Administrative Court of Luxembourg....................................................................... 156
Monaco................................................................................................................................... 159
Tribunal De Premiere Instance.................................................................................. 159
Malta....................................................................................................................................... 173
1st Hall Civil Court No2................................................................................................. 173
Moldova................................................................................................................................. 180
Tribunal of the Rascani Sector (Chisinau)............................................................... 180
The Netherlands................................................................................................................. 182
Rechtbank Court Arnhem........................................................................................... 182
Norway................................................................................................................................... 184
(a) Frostating Lagmannsrett....................................................................................... 184
(b) Midhordland Tingrett (District court)................................................................ 196
Portugal.................................................................................................................................. 206
Tribunal Judicial de Mafra.......................................................................................... 206
Romania................................................................................................................................ 208
Le Tribunal de Droit Commun................................................................................... 208
The Russian Federation.................................................................................................. 212
The Kaluga Regional Court.......................................................................................... 212
Slovak Republic.................................................................................................................. 214
District Court of Bratislava I....................................................................................... 214
Slovenia.................................................................................................................................. 220
(a) District Court of Nova Gorica................................................................................ 220
(b) District Court of Novo Mesto................................................................................ 226
(c) District Court of Maribor............................................................................................. 231
Spain....................................................................................................................................... 232
Juzgado Mercantil 3 Barcelona................................................................................... 232
Sweden................................................................................................................................... 238
Huddinge District Court.............................................................................................. 238
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia............................................................... 244
Basic Court Skopje I...................................................................................................... 244
United Kingdom...................................................................................................................... 250
(a) Manchester County Court..................................................................................... 250
(b) London County Court............................................................................................ 253
Table 1: Composition of the Network of Pilot Courts................................................. 258
Appendix 1: Information Note and Questionnaire submitted to Pilot Courts.... 267
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
Network of Pilot-courts
Proposed Courts: (a) Tirana District Court
(b) First Instance Court of Serious Crimes
Contact Person: Ilva Mitro, Chief of Unit for Personal Organization and Judicial Training, Department of Judicial Organization, Ministry of Justice
Tel.: ++ 355 69 20 65 883
E-Mail: [email protected]
Description of your court (I do not have the electronic version of this questionnaire – Network of Pilot – courts)
1.
a.
- Tirana District Court --------------It is a first instance court
- Court of Serious Crimes ---------- It is a first instance court
b. 1. Tirana District Court ---- is a court of general jurisdiction
2. Court of Serious Crimes ---- is a court only for serious crimes
c. Tirana District Court: ---- Civil chamber
Penal chamber
Administrative Chamber
Commercial Chamber
Familiar Chamber
- What is the average volume and the nature (civil, commercial, administrative ……) of cases addressed each year in your court?
Criminal cases for 2003: 1284
Civil cases for 2003: 13828 (752 are divorce cases)
- Please describe the composition of the court judicial and non judicial staff:
First instance court of Tirana:
- Number of judges: 50
- Administrative staff (whose task is to assist the judges):
- Canceller of the court = 1 person
- The Judicial Secretary and the Secretary of Session = 60 persons
The court also has a spokesperson.
- Other administrative staff including the financial management person, and the supportive administration sector (drivers, cleaning, etc) = 25 persons
Court of Serious Crimes:
a. Number of judges: 16
b. Administrative staff (whose task is to assist the judges):
- Canceller of the court = 1 person
- The Judicial Secretary and the Secretary of Session = 9 persons
c.Other administrative staff including the financial management person, and the supportive administration sector (drivers, cleaning, etc) = 13 persons
- Annual budget of the court (in Euro): 1 euro = 126.5 leks (Albanian currency)
Tirana District Court for 2003: 787 270 Euro (salaries, insurance + operation expenses)
+
106 178 Euro (investments per instance in infrastructure, computers, etc.)
Tirana Court of Serious Crimes 2004 (first instance):
290 119 Euro (salaries, insurance + operation expenses)
197 629 Euro (investments per instance in infrastructure, computers, etc.). This found wasn’t spent on 2004, and passed on 2005.
PART II: ALBANIA - tIRANA district court (first instance court)
QUESTIONNAIRE
I. The situation of the judicial timeframes in your court
1. If appropriate, please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases in civil and administrative matter.
|
Year 2004 |
Civil cases |
Administrative cases |
Divorce |
Employment dismissal[1] |
||||||
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
19056 |
Incoming cases for the year ’04 = 635 Pending from ‘03= 219 Received upon repeal = 28 Total = 882 |
Incoming cases for ’04 = 737 Pending from ‘03= 110 Received upon repeal = 3 Total = 850 |
Incoming cases for ’04 = 206 Pending from ‘03= 48 Received upon repeal = 3 Total = 257 |
||||||
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
17362 |
564 |
686 |
194 |
||||||
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
1694 |
318 |
164 |
63 |
||||||
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
n/a |
|||||||||
|
Average length of proceedings (from date of filing the case to the court*) |
|
Over six months |
* If you cannot calculate the average length from the date of filing the case to the court, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
2. If appropriate, criminal cases in courts – please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases and specify definitions of incoming cases, starting and ending point of timeframes and pending cases:
|
Year 2004 |
Criminal cases |
Robbery cases |
Intentional homicide |
||||||||
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
1802 |
Incoming cases for ’04 = 30 Pending from ‘03= 41 Received upon repeal = 3 Total = 74 |
Incoming cases for ’04 = 32 Pending from ‘03= 13 Received upon repeal = 2 Total = 47 |
||||||||
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
1328 + 290 |
58 |
28 |
||||||||
|
Annual number of convicted persons |
38 |
27 |
|||||||||
|
Annual number of acquitted persons |
2 |
0 |
|||||||||
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
474 |
16 |
19 |
||||||||
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
|||||||||||
|
Average length of proceedings (from the date of official charging*) |
|
Over six months |
Over six months |
* If it is not possible to calculate the average length from the date of official charging, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
3. Do you have a way of analysing queuing time (time in which nothing happens with the case) during court procedures? YES/NO
If yes, please specify: The president of the court once a week controls the overload of cases for each judge. Further more, in penal cases, although there are no timeframes/deadlines of procedures, there are timeframes for the detention, there after such deadlines does not allow in a way delays of the judicial processes.
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
4. Do you have an internal procedure for evaluating and monitoring lengths of proceedings? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
The Ministry of Justice through its unit of unified statistics takes care for the collection, working, and keeping of the unified statistical data, procedural, administrative, investigative, and legislative, as well as for the methodical and manner of keeping the judicial statistics, penal and civil. Through these data can be monitored the timeframe of the processes and their dynamics.
For the administrative suit there are timeframes for the process, not more than 30 days (from the day of presenting the suit) to finish the judgement.
In penal cases, although there are no timeframes/deadlines of procedures, there are timeframes for the detention, there after such deadlines does not allow in a way delays of the judicial processes.
5. Do you have indicators of performance and targets as regards timeframes of procedures? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
There are no direct indicators, however through statistics we can evaluate the performance as regarding timeframes of procedures.
II. The relations between your court and the users of justice
6. Does your court have users’ or legal professionals’ surveys to measure public trust and satisfaction with the services delivered by the court? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
Tirana District Court (http://gjykata.altirana.com/) has published in its website all the data gathered from its administrative electronic system. So, any interested person can verify the length of judgements and the resions of postponing the hearings, putting in this way the work of the judges under the public eye.
____________________________________________________________
III. Specific initiatives carried on within your court as regards timeframes of procedure[2]
7. Does your court have practical experience in monitoring or reducing judicial timeframes? Has it in particular developed one or several specific initiatives in this field? Please specify.
The Ministry of Justice has developed the two draft- laws on “On compensation, in cases of legal violation during judgements” and “On the elimination of the delays in the judicial processes”.
8. What are the effects of this initiative? Please specify.
The two above mention draft – laws are still in discussion with professionals/ layers.
9. What could be the possible future modifications which might improve the results of this initiative?
10. Does this initiative have the support of the responsible public authorities in your country? If so, please give details.
11. Do you believe this initiative to be usable in other courts in European states?
IV. Concrete proposals from your court as regards optimum and foreseeable timeframes
12. Please, submit your comments or suggestions for a practical implementation, at the court level, of the Framework-Programme: "A new objective for judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe", in particular as regards some (or all) of the following proposals:
a) ensuring the transparency on timeframes for the users (see Line of Action 3: improving the foreseeability of the timeframes)
b) reducing queuing times (see Line of Action 4: defining and monitoring standards for an optimum timeframe for each type of case)
c) ensuring a systematic reasoning of court decisions and ensuring a prompt delivery of decisions to the parties (see Line of Action 9: acting on quality of proceedings)
d) selecting cases according to their complexity (see Line of Action 10: defining priorities in case management)
e) organising trials to reduce waiting time, while paying special attention to victims and witnesses (see Line of Action 11)
f) setting up a procedure to revive a pending case (see Line of Action 12)
g) organisation of the transmission of a case from a non competent court to the competent court (see Line of Action 13: making more flexible the rules on territorial jurisdiction of first instance courts)
h) setting up "contracts of objective" between courts and lawyers (see Line of Action 16: organising the relationships with lawyers)
i) enhancing the responsibility of judicial experts as regards judicial timeframes (see Line of Action 17: improving the monitoring of compliance with the time-limits by judicial experts)
j) involving judicial professions in the efforts towards optimum and foreseeable timeframes (Line of Action 18: defining the modalities for having bailiffs, clerks / Rechtspfleger, notaries and all other professions involved in justice)
13. Please, feel free to comment on any other proposals included in the Framework-Programme.
Commission EUROPENNE POUR L'EFFICACITE DE LA JUStice
(CEPEJ)
Réseau des tribunaux-référents
ETAT Membre: Principaute D’Andorre
PROPOSE PAR: ______________________________
(nom)
______________________________
TRIBUNAL PROPOSE (NOm): Tribunal Superior De Justicia
adressE: AVDA.TARRAGONA,
EDIFICI LES COLUMNES,
ANDORRA LA VELLA
personNE DE CONTACT: jean Louis VuiLLEMIN
tel: 00-376-870700
E-mail: [email protected]
***
DESCRIPTION DE VOTRE TRIBUNAL
2) Veuillez indiquer si votre tribunal est
a) un tribunal de première instance ou d'une instance supérieure:
Tribunal Superior APPEL EN DERNIER RESSORT
b) un tribunal de droit commun ou spécialisé (veuillez préciser):
DROIT COMMUN
c) Veuillez décrire la structure de votre tribunal, notamment le nombre de chambres et leur spécialisation:
COMPOSE DE TROIS CHAMBRES: CIVILE-PENALE-ADMINISTRATIVE
3) Quels sont le volume moyen et la nature (civile, commerciale, administrative, pénale, etc.) des affaires traitées chaque année dans votre tribunal?
CIVIL
PENAL
ADMINISTRATIF
4) Veuillez décrire la composition du personnel judiciaire et non judiciaire du tribunal
a) Nombre de juges: ___9_______
b) Le cas échéant, nombre de procureurs près votre tribunal: _____/_____
c) Nombre de personnel administratif non juge: ____4______
Si possible, veuillez distinguer entre:
§ le personnel non juge dont la tâche est d'assister le juge (préparation des dossiers, assistance pendant les audiences, rédaction des minutes des réunions, assistance dans la préparation de la décision), tels que les greffiers: _ 3_________
§ le personnel en charge des différentes tâches administratives et de gestion du tribunal (ressources humaines, gestion du matériel et des équipements, gestion financière, etc): _____1_____
§ le personnel technique et de maintenance: __________
5) Budget annuel du tribunal (en €): 6.600 EUROS
Ce montant inclut-il les salaires? - NON
Si oui, inclut-il les salaires de tout le personnel ou du seul personnel non juge?
____________________________________________________________
Commission EUROPENNE POUR L'EFFICACITE DE LA JUStice
(CEPEJ)
Réseau de tribunaux-référents
QUESTIONNAIRE
I. Situation des délais judiciaires dans votre tribunal
14. Le cas échéant, veuillez compléter ce tableau relatif au nombre d'affaires, à la durée des procédures et au stock d'affaires civiles et administratives:
|
Affaires civiles |
Affaires administratives |
Divorces |
Licenciements |
|
|
Nombre annuel d'affaires entrant |
260 |
121 |
||
|
Nombre annuel de décisions judiciaires |
286 |
130 |
||
|
Nombre d'affaires en attente (non jugées dans l'année) |
60 |
50 |
||
|
Nombre d'affaires en attente depuis plus de 3 ans |
0 |
0 |
||
|
Durée moyenne des procédures (depuis la date d'introduction de la requête auprès du tribunal *) |
4 mois |
6 mois |
* Si vous n'êtes pas en mesure de calculer la durée moyenne à partir de la date d'introduction de la requête, comment calculez-vous les délais de procédure?
15. Le cas échéant, veuillez compléter ce tableau relatif au nombre d'affaires, à la durée des procédures et au stock d'affaires pénales:
|
Affaires pénales |
Affaires pour vols |
Affaires pour homicide volontaire |
|
|
Nombre annuel d'affaires entrant |
49 |
||
|
Nombre annuel de décisions judiciaires |
48 |
||
|
Nombre annuel de personnes condamnées |
----- |
||
|
Nombre annuel de personnes acquittées |
----- |
|
Nombre d'affaires en attente (non jugées dans l'année) |
9 |
||
|
Nombre d'affaires en attente depuis plus de 3 ans |
0 |
||
|
Durée moyenne des procédures (depuis la date officielle d'incrimination)* |
3 mois |
* Si vous n'êtes pas en mesure de calculer la durée moyenne à partir de la date officielle d'incrimination, comment calculez-vous les délais de procédure?
16. Avez-vous un dispositif permettant d'analyser les temps morts des procédures (durées pendant lesquelles rien ne se passe concernant l'affaire)? NON
Si oui, veuillez préciser:
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
17. Avez-vous une procédure interne vous permettant d'évaluer et de contrôler la durée des procédures? NON
Si oui, veuillez préciser:
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
18. Avez-vous des indicateurs de performance et des objectifs définis au regard des durées des procédures? OUI/NON
Si oui, veuillez préciser:
L’OBJECTIF EST QUE DANS TOUTES PROCEDURES LE JUGEMENT SOIT RENDU DANS LE MOIS SUIVANT L’ATTRIBUTION DE L’AFFAIRE AU MAGISTRAT
II. Relations entre votre tribunal et les usagers de la justice
19. Votre tribunal dispose-t-il d'enquêtes auprès des usagers ou des professions juridiques permettant de mesurer la confiance et la satisfaction du public dans les services rendus par le tribunal? NON
Si oui, veuillez préciser:
III. Initiatives spécifiques développées par votre tribunal concernant les délais des procédures[3] (RÉPONSES DOCUMENTATION ADJOINTE)
20. Votre tribunal a-t-il une expérience pratique en matière de contrôle ou de réduction des délais judiciaires? A-t-il notamment développé une ou plusieurs initiatives spécifiques dans ce domaine? Veuillez les décrire.
21. Quels sont les effets de cette initiative? Veuillez préciser.
22. Quelles pourraient être les modifications futures à apporter pour améliorer les résultats de cette initiative?
23. Cette initiative est-elle soutenue par les pouvoirs publics compétents dans votre pays? Si oui, veuillez préciser.
24. Croyez-vous que cette initiative puisse être transposée à d'autres tribunaux dans les Etats européens?
IV. Propositions concrètes de la part de votre tribunal concernant les délais optimaux et prévisibles (RÉPONSES DOCUMENTATION ADJOINTE).
25. Veuillez soumettre vos commentaires ou suggestions pour la mise en oeuvre concrète, au niveau des tribunaux, du Programme-cadre: "Un nouvel objectif pour les systèmes judiciaires: le traitement de chaque affaire dans un délai optimal et prévisible ", en particulier au regard de certaines (ou de l'ensemble) des propositions suivantes:
a) assurer la transparence des délais auprès des usagers (voir Ligne d’action 3 : améliorer la prévisibilité des délais)
b) réduire les temps morts des procédures (voir Ligne d’action 4 : définir des normes pour un délai optimal par type d’affaires et en contrôler l’application)
c) assurer une motivation systématique des décisions judiciaires et assurer une notification rapide des décisions aux parties (voir Ligne d’action 9 : agir sur la qualité des procédures)
d) sélectionner les affaires en fonction de leur complexité (voir Ligne d’action 10 : fixer des priorités dans le traitement des affaires)
e) organiser les audiences pour réduire les délais d'attente, en accordant une attention particulière aux victimes et aux témoins (voir Ligne d’action 11)
f) instaurer une procédure permettant de remettre en mouvement une procédure en souffrance (voir Ligne d’action 12)
g) organiser la transmission d'une affaire d'un tribunal non compétent vers le tribunal compétent (voir Ligne d’action 13 : assouplir les règles de compétence territoriale entre les juridictions de première instance)
h) mettre en place des "contrats d'objectif" entre les tribunaux et les avocats (voir Ligne d’action 16 : organiser les relations avec les avocats)
i) renforcer la responsabilisation des experts judiciaires en matière de délais (voir Ligne d’action 17 : organiser un meilleur contrôle du respect des délais des experts judiciaires)
j) impliquer les professions judiciaires dans les efforts visant à atteindre des délais optimaux et prévisibles (voir Ligne d’action 18 : définir les moyens d’une association plus efficace des huissiers, des greffiers/Rechtspfleger, des notaires, et de toutes les autres professions qui contribuent à la justice).
26. Vous êtes invités à commenter toute autre proposition contenue dans le Programme-cadre.
III.- INITIATIVES SPECIFIQUES
7) Afin de réduire les délais de procédure, la chambre civile a instauré de façon prétorienne, la renonciation a l'audience civile. Ainsi dès le dépôt de leurs dernières conclusions, les avocats des parties peuvent renoncer a ce que leur affaire soit fixée à une audience .
8) Les effets de cette initiative sont très importants, à commencer par un gain de temps conséquent, tant pour les magistrats que pour les avocats. En effet, en cas de renonciation à l'audience, l' affaire est aussitôt examinée par le tribunal sans attendre une date d'audience, et après délibération, distribuée au magistrat rapporteur pour la rédaction du jugement. Le résultat en est que les parties sont quasiment assurées d'avoir le jugement de leur affaire, dans le mois suivant le dépôt des dernières écritures, puisqu'il n'y a plus de délais d'audiencement. En règle générale, ne sont soumises à l'audience que les affaires les plus délicates nécessitant un développement oral des conclusions écrites. Ainsi sur un volume approximatif de 30 dossiers en état de jugement chaque mois, seuls 4 ou 5 viennent jusqu’à l'audience, réduisant celle ci à une matinée, au lieu de 2 jours complets, si toutes les affaires étaient plaidées. Pour les magistrats de la chambre, ce système permet de mieux planifier leur emploi du temps, puisqu'ils ne sont pas tenus d'attendre l'audience pour connaître leur charge de travail et disposer des dossiers dans lesquels ils doivent rédiger la décision.
9) Cette initiative pourrait être améliorée, si la tenue de l'audience était laissée a la discrétion des magistrats de la chambre et non des avocats des parties, ce qui permettrait de mieux rationaliser la tenue des audiences et de gagner encore plus de temps. Pour cela il faudrait une modification des règles de procédure civile.
10) Aucune observation ni critique n'a accompagné l'instauration de cette initiative, reconnue d'une grande utilité par tous les praticiens du droit.
11) Cette expérience peut être transposée a d'autres tribunaux dans les Etats européens, moyennant des adaptations en fonction des différentes procédures civiles pratiquées.
IV.- PROPOSITIONS CONCRETES
a) Les procédures se heurtant à des obstacles, aussi divers qu'imprévisibles, il apparaît illusoire de prévoir une durée standard, même approximative pour chaque type de procédure, du moins en 1ère instance. Au surplus, s'il est parfaitement exact qu'il est très pénible pour les usagers de ne pas connaître lors du début d'une procédure, quand celle ci se terminera, en revanche il est peut être encore plus pénible pour eux, de compter sur des délais prévus ou prévisibles et voir ceux ci se proroger pour des raisons, même tout à fait acceptables et compréhensibles. La frustration pouvant résulter d'un non respect des délais prévisibles, pouvant être supérieure à celle d'une impossibilité de prévision. Néanmoins, en ANDORRE, il est prévu des délais courts et impératifs impartis à chaque avocat pour conclure. Ces délais ont été prévus par la Loi, ce qui fait qu'en cause d'appel, le délai entre le jour de la formation du recours et celui où l'affaire sera en état d'être jugée, en cas de renonciation à l'audience, est parfaitement déterminable au mois près.
b) Un temps mort important de la procédure est le délai d’audiencement, qui peut atteindre plusieurs mois. La suppression, obligatoire ou facultative, de l'audience civile est un moyen de supprimer ce temps mort et d'accélérer la procédure. Les renvois d'une audience a une autre, pour n'importe quel motif, sources importantes d'allongement de la procédure, n'ont également plus lieu d'être, si l'audience est supprimée. Un autre temps mort important est le délai s'écoulant entre le dépôt des conc1usions des différentes parties. Comme il a été exposé ci dessus, l'instauration de délais raisonnablement courts, de l'ordre de 15 jours pour conclure et surtout leur caractère impératif sans possibilité d'exception, ont permis de remédier à cette situation.
c) En ANDORRE l'ajournement, à jour fixe ou encore plus sine die est quasiment impossible, sauf litispendance. La procédure civile est draconienne, toutes conc1usions ou toutes pièces de procédure déposées hors les délais prescrits par la Loi, sont irrecevables. Il en résulte que les avocats sont très diligents.
d) Toutes les affaires sont prises dans l'ordre de leur état à être résolues, qu'elles soient simples ou complexes, et jugées quasiment en même temps. La gestion se fait au niveau de la répartition des affaires entre magistrats de la chambre ; celui chargé de rédiger el jugement dans une affaire délicate se verra déchargé d'affaires plus simples qui seront gérées par les autres magistrats.
e) L' organisation des audiences a été traitée antérieurement, la ligne d'action proposée étant la tenue d'audiences civiles qu'à la seule demande des magistrats de la chambre, lorsqu'ils l'estiment utile.
t) Le recours proposé est intéressant, mais ne risque t’il pas d'accroître encore plus la durée de la procédure. Peut être pourrait on imaginer un appel «procédural» au bout d'un délai préalablement fixé et correspondant a une durée raisonnable, devant la juridiction ordinaire supérieure, qui pourrait évoquer l'affaire et statuer. Ce système aurait cependant l'inconvénient de supprimer un degré de juridiction.
g) L'existence d'une seule juridiction de 1er degré en ANDORRE supprime tout problème de compétence territoriale. En ce qui concerne la compétence d'attribution, elle n'existe qu'entre les différentes chambres. Cependant les règles de procédure, différentes selon que l'on saisit la chambre civile ou administrative, ne permettent pas, actuellement, à une chambre saisie alors qu'elle est incompétente de transmettre le dossier à la chambre compétente.
h) La collaboration avec les avocats est essentielle pour un bon fonctionnement de la justice. Il est prévu la mise en place de réunions informelles entre le Barreau et les magistrats, d'une fréquence annuelle ou à la demande de l'une ou l'autre de ses composantes.
i) Il n'existe pas d'experts judiciaires en ANDORRE, ceux ci sont généralement choisis par les parties. Le juge rapporteur exerce un contrôle sur les délais.
J) Cette ligne d'action est sans objet pour un petit pays comme Andorre, où les rapports personnels sont suffisants pour motiver tous les participants à l’œuvre de justice.
ETAT Membre: Republic of Armenia
PROPOSE PAR: Cour de cassation de la Republique de l'Armenie
TRIBUNAL PROPOSE (NOm): Cour de premiere instance de l'arrondissement Malatya-Sebastya de Erevan
adressE: republique de l'armeni, 375065, EREVAN, RUE otian 53/2
personNE DE CONTACT: stepan mikaelyan, JUGE de cour de premiere instence de l'arondissement malatya
sebastya de erevan
tel: (37410)742890; (37410)577196;
(37490)326732
E-mail: [email protected]
FAX: (37410)742910; (37410)249645
***
DESCRIPTION DE VOTRE TRIBUNAL
1. Veuillez indiquer si votre tribunal est
a. un tribunal de première instance ou d'une instance supérieure:
un tribunal de première instance
b. un tribunal de droit commun ou spécialisé (veuillez préciser):
un tribunal de droit commun un tribunal de droit commun
c. Veuillez décrire la structure de votre tribunal, notamment le nombre de chambres et leur spécialisation:
Le tribunal est compose de six juge, parmi les quelles un est le président du tribunal/ Tigrane Petrossyan-tel (37410)741850, (37410)741820/. Chaque juge a son greffier et secrétaire. Le tribunal a son administration, compose de chef de l'administration, de greffier général, des assistants, qui réalisent les travaux quotidiennes et de l'archive.
Comme dans tout les tribunaux de premier instances, le tribunal propose est un tribunal d'ordre civile, pénale et administrative et dans cet instance il n’existe pas des chambres spécialisées.
La loi organique essentielle, qui régulie les rapports de composition et de compétences des tribunaux, d’hors de la constitution de la République, est la LOI DE JURIDICTION DE L'ORDRE JUDICIAIRE.
Les compétences des juges se regulient par la LOI DE COMPETENCS DES JUGES.
2. Quels sont le volume moyen et la nature (civile, commerciale, administrative, pénale, etc.) des affaires traitées chaque année dans votre tribunal?
Civile 3000 affaire
Pénale 200 affaire
Administrative 130 affaire
3. Veuillez décrire la composition du personnel judiciaire et non judiciaire du tribunal
a. Nombre de juges:
Six
b. Le cas échéant, nombre de procureurs près votre tribunal:
Pour les affaires pénales, les enquêtes des quelle sont étaient préparées par les inspecteurs de l'arrondissement, pendant les audiences assistent les avocats généraux de l'arrondissements, avec les même conditions: de la ville de Erevan et du Parquet général, donc le nombre de procureurs n'est pas limite par l'arrondissement.
c. Nombre de personnel administratif non juge:
Si possible, veuillez distinguer entre:
§ le personnel non juge dont la tâche est d'assister le juge (préparation des dossiers, assistance pendant les audiences, rédaction des minutes des réunions, assistance dans la préparation de la décision), tels que les greffiers:
le personnel non juge dont la tache est d'assister le juge, pour chaque juge, comme on a indiquer ci-dessus sont, le greffier et le secrétaire personnel de juge. Donc le nombre de personnel non juge dans le tribunal présente sont douze.
§ le personnel en charge des différentes tâches administratives et de gestion du tribunal (ressources humaines, gestion du matériel et des équipements, gestion financière, etc.):
huite
§ le personnel technique et de maintenance:
quatre
4. Budget annuel du tribunal (en €):
78246 totale;
Ce montant inclut-il les salaires? OUI
Si oui, inclut-il les salaires de tout le personnel ou du seul personnel non juge? OUI
Avec plaisir nous serions prête à vous présenter des informations supplémentaires.
QUESTIONNAIRE
|
Affaires civiles ø³Õ.·áñÍ. |
Affaires administratives ì³ñã³Ï³Ý ·áñÍ. |
Divorces ²ÙáõëݳÉáõÍ. |
Licenciements |
|
|
Nombre annuel d'affaires entrant î³ñ»Ï³Ý ÁݹáõÝí³Í ·áñÍ»ñÇ ÃÇíÁ |
9155 |
131 |
167 |
35 |
|
Nombre annuel de décisions judiciaires î³ñ»Ï³Ý ϳ۳óí³Í ¹³ï³Ï³Ý ³Ïï»ñÇ ÃÇíÁ |
8798 |
131 |
131 |
30 |
|
Nombre d'affaires en attente (non jugées dans l'année) î³ñí³ ÁÝóóùáõÙ ã³í³ñïí³Í ·áñÍ»ñÇ ù³Ý³ÏÁ |
129 |
0 |
27 |
1 |
|
Nombre d'affaires en attente depuis plus de 3 ans ºñ»ù ï³ñáõó ³í»ÉÇ Å³Ù³Ý³Ï³Ñ³ïí³ÍáõÙ ã³í³ñïí³Í ·áñÍ»ñÇ ÃÇíÁ |
8 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Durée moyenne des procédures (depuis la date d'introduction de la requête auprès du tribunal *) ¸³ï³Ï³Ý ùÝÝáõÃÛ³Ý ÙÇçÇÝ Å³Ù³Ý³Ï³Ñ³ïí³ÍÁ/¹³ï³ñ³ÝáõÙ ·áñÍÁ ѳñáõó»Éáõ å³ÑÇó/ |
1 mois |
1 jour |
2 mois |
15 jours |
* Si vous n'êtes pas en mesure de calculer la durée moyenne à partir de la date d'introduction de la requête, comment calculez-vous les délais de procédure?
2. Le cas échéant, veuillez compléter ce tableau relatif au nombre d'affaires, à la durée des procédures et au stock d'affaires pénales:
|
Affaires pénales øñ»³Ï³Ý ·áñÍ. |
Affaires pour vols ¶áÕáõÃÛáõÝ |
Affaires pour homicide volontaire |
|
|
Nombre annuel d'affaires entrant î³ñ»Ï³Ý ÁݹáõÝí³Í ·áñÍ»ñÇ ÃÇíÁ |
221 |
36 |
8 |
|
Nombre annuel de décisions judiciaires î³ñ»Ï³Ý ϳ۳óí³Í ¹³ï³Ï³Ý ³Ïï»ñÇ ÃÇíÁ |
180 |
33 |
5 |
|
Nombre annuel de personnes condamnées î³ñ»Ï³Ý ¹³ï³å³ñïí³Í ³ÝÓ³Ýó ù³Ý³ÏÁ |
245 |
42 |
5 |
|
Nombre annuel de personnes acquittées î³ñ»Ï³Ý ³ñ¹³ñ³óí³Í ³ÝÓ³Ýó ù³Ý³ÏÁ |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Nombre d'affaires en attente (non jugées dans l'année) î³ñí³ ÁÝóóùáõÙ ã³í³ñïí³Í ·áñÍ»ñÇ ù³Ý³ÏÁ |
28 |
2 |
0 |
|
Nombre d'affaires en attente depuis plus de 3 ans ºñ»ù ï³ñáõó ³í»ÉÇ Å³Ù³Ý³Ï³Ñ³ïí³ÍáõÙ ã³í³ñïí³Í ·áñÍ»ñÇ ÃÇíÁ |
6 |
0 |
1 |
|
Durée moyenne des procédures (depuis la date officielle d'incrimination)* ¸³ï³Ï³Ý ùÝÝáõÃÛ³Ý ÙÇçÇÝ Å³Ù³Ý³Ï³Ñ³ïí³ÍÁ/¹³ï³ñ³ÝáõÙ ·áñÍÁ ѳñáõó»Éáõ å³ÑÇó/ |
2 mois |
1 mois |
2 mois |
* Si vous n'êtes pas en mesure de calculer la durée moyenne à partir de la date officielle d'incrimination, comment calculez-vous les délais de procédure?
3. Avez-vous un dispositif permettant d'analyser les temps morts des procédures (durées pendant lesquelles rien ne se passe concernant l'affaire)? OUI/NON
Si oui, veuillez préciser:
_Pendant la suspension de la procédure, les fonds de quelle est prévu par les procédures civil et pénales
4. Avez-vous une procédure interne vous permettant d'évaluer et de contrôler la durée des procédures? OUI/NON
Si oui, veuillez préciser:
Il existe une commission permanent auprès du Président de la république et un administration de ministère de la justice, qui sont charger de contrôler la durée des procédures.
5. Avez-vous des indicateurs de performance et des objectifs définis au regard des durées des procédures? OUI/NON
Si oui, veuillez préciser:
Pour les affaires civils le durée maximum de la procédure le code de procédure civil prévoie deux mois , pour les affaires commerciales un mois: depuis la date d'introduction de la requête auprès du tribunal. Pour les affaires pénales la loi n'a pas prévu une limite de la durée final pour la procédure dans le tribunal.
II. Relations entre votre tribunal et les usagers de la justice
6. Votre tribunal dispose-t-il d'enquêtes auprès des usagers ou des professions juridiques permettant de mesurer la confiance et la satisfaction du public dans les services rendus par le tribunal? OUI/NON
Si oui, veuillez préciser:
Ce sont l’administration de l’ombudsman, administration de justice auprès de la président de république et administration de control de ministère de la justice.
III. Initiatives spécifiques développées par votre tribunal concernant les délais des procédures[4][1]
7. Votre tribunal a-t-il une expérience pratique en matière de contrôle ou de réduction des délais judiciaires? A-t-il notamment développé une ou plusieurs initiatives spécifiques dans ce domaine? Veuillez les décrire.
Les compétences des tribunaux sont régler par les lois et aucun tribunal avec son initiative n’ a pas le droit de contrôler ou de réduire les délais judiciaires. En même temps il faut prendre conte, que les tribunaux de première instance par le procédure pénale ont la compétence de surveiller sur tout les procès de inspection qui se passe dans la police et dans le parque et dans cette compétence entre aussi le control de garde des délais judiciaires.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
Network of Pilot-courts
pROPOSED court (Name): Bezirksgericht Linz
address: A-4020 Linz, Fadingerstraße 2
Contact person: Dr. Walter Engelberger
Gerichtsvorsteher
tel: +43-732/7601-3001
E-mail: [email protected]
***
DESCRIPTION OF YOUR COURT
6) Please specify if your court is
a) a court of first instance or a higher instance court:
BG Linz is a court of first instance.
b) a court of general jurisdiction or a specialised court (please specify):
BG Linz is a court of general jurisdiction concerning with matters of civil cases up to EUR 10.000,-, criminal cases up to possible prison sentence up to one year, all matters of families and private attorneys, tenancy, inheritance, land registration, placement by force in psychiatric hospitals.
c) Please describe the structure of your court, in particular the number of specialised chambers:
BG Linz consists only of single judges, 8 in general civil matters, 8 in familiy law and matters of private attorneys, 4 in criminal cases and 1 in executing the sentences.
For special tasks there are 15 judicial officers (“Rechtspfleger”) in cases of land registration, more simple cases in family and inheritance law, dunning proceedings and proceedings of execution.
7) What is the average volume and the nature (civil, commercial, administrative, criminal, etc.) of the cases addressed each year in your court?
Civil and commercial cases 20.364
Criminal cases 1.518
Inheritance cases 2.032
Familiy and privat attorney cases 1.207
Divorce 682
Execution proceedings 31.845
8) Please describe the composition of the court judicial and non judicial staff
a) Number of judges: 22
b) If appropriate, number of prosecutors attached to the court: 2
c) Number of non judge administrative staff: 60
If possible, could you categorise between:
§ non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges (case file preparation, assistance during the hearing, keeping the minutes of the meetings, helping to prepare the decisions) such as registrars:
15 judicial officers (“Rechtspfleger”), 39 in judges` chanceries and writing department
§ staff in charge of different administrative tasks as well as of the management of the courts (human resources management, material and equipment management, financial management, etc): 4
§ technical staff and staff in charge of maintenance functions: 2
9) Annual budget of the court (in €): no budget, only the permit to buy things up to EUR 400,- each
Does this amount include salaries? NO
austria - Part ii – questionaire
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
Network of Pilot-courts
QUESTIONNAIRE
I. The situation of the judicial timeframes in your court
27. If appropriate, please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases in civil and administrative matter.
|
Year 2004 |
Civil cases |
Administrative cases |
Divorce |
Employment dismissal |
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
20.270 including 15.785 absolute dunning proceedings |
No competence |
682 |
No competence |
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
533 sentences |
X |
505 |
x |
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
669 |
X |
154 |
x |
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
28 |
X |
4 |
x |
|
Average length of proceedings (from date of filing the case to the court*) |
unknown |
X |
unknown |
x |
- If you cannot calculate the average length from the date of filing the case to the court, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
We do not calculate average length of proceedings.
28. If appropriate, criminal cases in courts – please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases and specify definitions of incoming cases, starting and ending point of timeframes and pending cases:
|
Criminal cases |
Robbery cases |
Intentional homicide |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
1.518 |
No competence |
No competence |
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
761 |
X |
X |
|
Annual number of convicted persons |
648 |
X |
X |
|
Annual number of acquitted persons |
150 |
X |
X |
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
112 |
X |
X |
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
14 |
Xx |
Xx |
|
Average length of proceedings (from the date of official charging*) |
unknown |
xx |
Xx |
- If it is not possible to calculate the average length from the date of official charging, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
We do not.
29. Do you have a way of analysing queuing time (time in which nothing happens with the case) during court procedures?
YES
If yes, please specify:
Each case where there is no new entry in the electronic registry for more than 3 months gets automatically into a checklist. This list is handed out monthly to the president of the court and further to each judge and his secretary for controlling.
30. Do you have an internal procedure for evaluating and monitoring lengths of proceedings?
YES
If yes, please specify:
Once a year the president of the court receives a list of all cases containing all cases running longer than one year or waiting for judges written sentence for more than 2 months. If necessary the president will ask for reports or will set other activities to solve the problems.
31. Do you have indicators of performance and targets as regards timeframes of procedures?
YES
If yes, please specify:
Each judge of the court monthly receives a summary including the numbers of all pending cases of his department, separated depending on the length of proceedings (more than 1 year, 2 year or 3 years). It is the task of the head of court to supervise this list and set activities of help or discipline, if this number is exceeding average values.
II. The relations between your court and the users of justice
32. Does your court have users’ or legal professionals’ surveys to measure public trust and satisfaction with the services delivered by the court?
NO
III. Specific initiatives carried on within your court as regards timeframes of procedure[5]
33. Does your court have practical experience in monitoring or reducing judicial timeframes? Has it in particular developed one or several specific initiatives in this field? Please specify.
a) Each year at Oct 1st all judges have to report all their cases, in which they have not delivered the written sentence for more than 2 months.
b) By personal management I try to secure writing times of minutes and sentences not exceeding two weeks.
c) By management of computer we secure online correcting of all written pages without producing copies of the same document.
34. What are the effects of this initiative? Please specify.
To a) Most sentences are delivered in time.
To b) Judges need not start again reading the file after long periods of writing time.
To c) It is not necessary sending files back to writing department for correcting the minutes or sentence.
35. What could be the possible future modifications which might improve the results of this initiative?
By high quality software for “speech to text” writing time could be reduced or eliminated.
36. Does this initiative have the support of the responsible public authorities in your country? If so, please give details.
To a) Yes, because I get lists of the cases without sentences from ministry of justice.
To b) No, because almost every year staff is reduced.
37. Do you believe this initiative to be usable in other courts in European states?
It could be possible depending on computer systems und systems of registry.
IV. Concrete proposals from your court as regards optimum and foreseeable timeframes
38. Please, submit your comments or suggestions for a practical implementation, at the court level, of the Framework-Programme: "A new objective for judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe", in particular as regards some (or all) of the following proposals:
a) ensuring the transparency on timeframes for the users (see Line of Action 3: improving the foreseeability of the timeframes)
Lawyers are able to look into court’s registry via internet, restricted to their own cases.
b) reducing queuing times (see Line of Action 4: defining and monitoring standards for an optimum timeframe for each type of case)
The judges have to set time limits for experts to get the expertise in time.
c) ensuring a systematic reasoning of court decisions and ensuring a prompt delivery of decisions to the parties (see Line of Action 9: acting on quality of proceedings)
Production of fixed parts of the text of sentences, than in addition individual reasoning parts produced by the judge
d) selecting cases according to their complexity (see Line of Action 10: defining priorities in case management)
The Judicial Board for personnel affairs can set a judge free of other cases if he has to deal with a very big case which needs his full working power.
The abilities of appeal are different depending on the value in dispute.
e) organising trials to reduce waiting time, while paying special attention to victims and witnesses (see Line of Action 11)
Witnesses are told to appear at different times at the hearing in expectation to reduce waiting time.
f) setting up a procedure to revive a pending case (see Line of Action 12)
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 in time.
g) organisation of the transmission of a case from a non competent court to the competent court (see Line of Action 13: making more flexible the rules on territorial jurisdiction of first instance courts)
In some cases (e.g. family and labour law) the judge has to send the file officially to the competent court.
h) setting up "contracts of objective" between courts and lawyers (see Line of Action 16: organising the relationships with lawyers).
There are no such contracts in Austria.
i) enhancing the responsibility of judicial experts as regards judicial timeframes (see Line of Action 17: improving the monitoring of compliance with the time-limits by judicial experts)
Using the electronic traffic between lawyers and court reduces times of delivery between this institutions.
j) involving judicial professions in the efforts towards optimum and foreseeable timeframes (Line of Action 18: defining the modalities for having bailiffs, clerks / Rechtspfleger, notaries and all other professions involved in justice)
Judicial officers-Rechtspfleger work in several parts of law, e.g. in inheritance cases, insolvency, dunning and execution proceedings and land registry
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
Network of Pilot-courts
Submitted by: Ramin Gurbanov
(name)
Ministry of Justice
Court (Name): (a) Local Economic Court 1
Address: Baku, 56 Vazirovstr.
Contact person: Saadet Bertashi
Tel: ______________________________
E-mail: ______________________________
***
DESCRIPTION OF YOUR COURT
10) Please specify if your court is
a) a court of first instance or a higher instance court:
Court of First Instance ____________________________________________________________
b) a court of general jurisdiction or a specialised court (please specify):
Specialised Court
____________________________________________________________
c) Please describe the structure of your court, in particular the number of specialised chambers:
11) What is the average volume and the nature (civil, commercial, administrative, criminal, etc.) of the cases addressed each year in your court?
2004: Commercial Cases – 3,427
12) Please describe the composition of the court judicial and non judicial staff
a) Number of judges: 6
b) If appropriate, number of prosecutors attached to the court: -
c) Number of non judge administrative staff: 20
If possible, could you categorise between:
§ non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges (case file preparation, assistance during the hearing, keeping the minutes of the meetings, helping to prepare the decisions) such as registrars: 9
§ staff in charge of different administrative tasks as well as of the management of the courts (human resources management, material and equipment management, financial management, etc): 5
§ technical staff and staff in charge of maintenance functions: 6
13) Annual budget of the court (in €): 65,797
Does this amount include salaries? No
If yes, does it include salaries for the whole staff or for the non judicial staff only?
€43,123 budget does not include salaries
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
Network of Pilot-courts
Member state: Azerbaijan
Submitted by: Ramin Gurbanov
(name)
Ministry of Justice
Court (Name): (b) Nasimi District Court
Address: Baku, 56 Vazirovstr.
Contact person: Aladdin Jafarov
Tel: ______________________________
E-mail: ______________________________
***
DESCRIPTION OF YOUR COURT
14) Please specify if your court is
a) a court of first instance or a higher instance court:
Court of First Instance ____________________________________________________________
b) a court of general jurisdiction or a specialised court (please specify):
General Jurisdiction Court
____________________________________________________________
c) Please describe the structure of your court, in particular the number of specialised chambers:
15) What is the average volume and the nature (civil, commercial, administrative, criminal, etc.) of the cases addressed each year in your court?
2004: Civil Cases – 2,749
Administrative cases – 442
Criminal cases – 738
16) Please describe the composition of the court judicial and non judicial staff
a) Number of judges: 6
b) If appropriate, number of prosecutors attached to the court: 2
c) Number of non judge administrative staff: 21
If possible, could you categorise between:
§ non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges (case file preparation, assistance during the hearing, keeping the minutes of the meetings, helping to prepare the decisions) such as registrars: 9
§ staff in charge of different administrative tasks as well as of the management of the courts (human resources management, material and equipment management, financial management, etc): 4
§ technical staff and staff in charge of maintenance functions: 8
17) Annual budget of the court (in €): 64,710
Does this amount include salaries? YES – NO
If yes, does it include salaries for the whole staff or for the non judicial staff only?
€45,706 budget does not include salaries
Proposed court (Name): District Court – Burgas
Address: BULGARIA – BURGAS 8000
“ Alexandrovska “ 101
Contact person: SABINA NENKOVA HRISTOVA
tel: +359/ 056/ 879400/879408
E-mail: Osburgas @ abv. bg
***
DESCRIPTION OF YOUR COURT
1. Please specify if your court is
a. a court of first instance or a higher instance court:
First instance for some civil, administrative or criminal matters and higher instance courts for some civil, and criminal matters.
b. a court of general jurisdiction or a specialised court (please specify):
c. Please describe the structure of your court, in particular the number of specialised chambers:
· What is the average volume and the nature (civil, commercial, administrative, criminal, etc.) of the cases addressed each year in your court?
CIVIL 9000 - 10000
COMMERSIAL 300- 500
ADMINISTRATIVE 1300 - 1500
CRIMINAL 1500 - 1700
· Please describe the composition of the court judicial and non judicial staff
a) Number of judges: _____41_____
b) If appropriate, number of prosecutors attached to the court: __________
c) Number of non judge administrative staff: ____61______
If possible, could you categorise between:
§ non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges (case file preparation, assistance during the hearing, keeping the minutes of the meetings, helping to prepare the decisions) such as registrars: ____14______
§ staff in charge of different administrative tasks as well as of the management of the courts (human resources management, material and equipment management, financial management, etc): _____5_____
§ technical staff and staff in charge of maintenance functions: ___4______
2. Annual budget of the court (in €): 700 000 – 800 000
Does this amount include salaries? YES – NO
If yes, does it include salaries for the whole staff or for the non judicial staff only?
YES it includes salaries for the whole staff and for the non judicial staff.
Bulgaria : Part II – Questionnaire
I. The situation of the judicial timeframes in your court
1. If appropriate, please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases in civil and administrative matter.
|
Civil cases |
Administrative cases |
Divorce |
Employment dismissal |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
10400 |
1300 |
1550 |
322 |
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
9646 |
1100 |
11200 |
308 |
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
1214 |
594 |
373 |
14 |
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
44 |
41 |
23 |
- |
|
Average length of proceedings (from date of filing the case to the court*) |
Up to 3 months 35%, up to 12 months 45%, more than 12 months 20 % |
Up to 3 months 35%, more than 3 months 65 % |
Up to 8 months 65%, about 12 months 35 % |
Up to 6 months 90% |
* If you cannot calculate the average length from the date of filing the case to the court, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
2. If appropriate, criminal cases in courts – please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases and specify definitions of incoming cases, starting and ending point of timeframes and pending cases:
|
Criminal cases |
Robbery cases |
Intentional homicide |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
1650 |
15 |
14 |
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
1400 |
7 |
9 |
|
Annual number of convicted persons |
289 |
22 |
12 |
|
Annual number of acquitted persons |
9 |
- |
2 |
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
81 |
8 |
5 |
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
3 |
3 |
- |
|
Average length of proceedings (from the date of official charging*) |
Up to 8 months 80%, |
Up to 8 months |
about 12 months |
* If it is not possible to calculate the average length from the date of official charging, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
3. Do you have a way of analysing queuing time (time in which nothing happens with the case) during court procedures? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
It depends on the kind of the proceedings that are going to take due place in the next hearing – time for expertise, for finding documents, answers from administrative bodies.
4. Do you have an internal procedure for evaluating and monitoring lengths of proceedings? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
We have practical criteria considering the conditions of the country
We have an internal procedure for evaluating and monitoring lengths of proceedings by checking the cases each month making checks up about the flow of cases making verifications about the work of judges and the results of cases each month
5. Do you have indicators of performance and targets as regards timeframes of procedures? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
We have indicators of performance and targets as regards timeframes of procedures such as brings against slowness in civil cases
II. The relations between your court and the users of justice
6. Does your court have users’ or legal professionals’ surveys to measure public trust and satisfaction with the services delivered by the court? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
Our court have users’ or legal professionals’ surveys to measure public trust and satisfaction with the services delivered by the court such as The union of judges NGO – USAID ABA CEEL annual reports
III. Specific initiatives carried on within your court as regards timeframes of procedure[6]
7. Does your court have practical experience in monitoring or reducing judicial timeframes? Has it in particular developed one or several specific initiatives in this field? Please specify.
We have practical experience in monitoring and reducing judicial timeframes. Several specific initiatives in this field are: when the number of criminal cases grows up, we try to increase the number of judges first of all. Second, civil judges take part in the proceedings, third we increase the qualification of the administration by different kinds of seminars.
8. What are the effects of this initiative? Please specify.
The effect of this initiative is the tendency for higher level of justice.
9. What could be the possible future modifications which might improve the results of this initiative?
The possible future modifications which might improve the results of this initiative is to bring into use distinct criteria about the work- loading of a judge and bring into use the model of a judge team,
10. Does this initiative have the support of the responsible public authorities in your country? If so, please give details.
According to these motives of the president of the court, for higher
level of justice, the member of judges is increased such as the budget
of the court.
11. Do you believe this initiative to be usable in other courts in European states?
IV. Concrete proposals from your court as regards optimum and foreseeable timeframes
12. Please, submit your comments or suggestions for a practical implementation, at the court level, of the Framework-Programme: "A new objective for judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe", in particular as regards some (or all) of the following proposals:
a) ensuring the transparency on timeframes for the users (see Line of Action 3: improving the foreseeability of the timeframes)
b) reducing queuing times (see Line of Action 4: defining and monitoring standards for an optimum timeframe for each type of case)
c) ensuring a systematic reasoning of court decisions and ensuring a prompt delivery of decisions to the parties (see Line of Action 9: acting on quality of proceedings)
d) selecting cases according to their complexity (see Line of Action 10: defining priorities in case management)
e) organising trials to reduce waiting time, while paying special attention to victims and witnesses (see Line of Action 11)
f) setting up a procedure to revive a pending case (see Line of Action 12)
g) organisation of the transmission of a case from a non competent court to the competent court (see Line of Action 13: making more flexible the rules on territorial jurisdiction of first instance courts)
h) setting up "contracts of objective" between courts and lawyers (see Line of Action 16: organising the relationships with lawyers)
i) enhancing the responsibility of judicial experts as regards judicial timeframes (see Line of Action 17: improving the monitoring of compliance with the time-limits by judicial experts)
j) involving judicial professions in the efforts towards optimum and foreseeable timeframes (Line of Action 18: defining the modalities for having bailiffs, clerks / Rechtspfleger, notaries and all other professions involved in justice)
13. Please, feel free to comment on any other proposals included in the Framework-Programme.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
Network of Pilot-courts
Member state: Republic of Croatia
Submitted by: Ministry of justice
(name)
______________________________
pROPOSED court (Name): Municipal Court of Varaždin
address: B. radić 2, 42000 varaždin
__________________________
Contact person: damir kontrec – president of the court
tel: 0038542401831
E-mail:
DESCRIPTION OF YOUR COURT
a) Please specify if your court is
a) a court of first instance or a higher instance court
- Court of first instance
email – [email protected]
b) a court of general jurisdiction or a specialised court (please specify):
- Court of general jurisdiction for all civil matters and crime matters (max. punishment 10 years prison)
c) Please describe the structure of your court, in particular the number of specialised chambers:
- Municipal court of Varaždin is organised in 5 specialised chambers:
1. Civil chamber
2. Criminal chamber
3. Labour chamber
4. Land registry chamber
5. Execution chamber
b) What is the average volume and the nature (civil, commercial, administrative, criminal, etc.) of the cases addressed each year in your court?
- Civil cases (includes employment dismissal, divorce, and all other kinds) – 2700
- Criminal cases – 600
- Land registry cases – 8500
- Execution cases – 6500
-All other types of cases (hereditary cases) –1200
c) Please describe the composition of the court judicial and non judicial staff
a) Number of judges: 19
b) If appropriate, number of prosecutors attached to the court: -
c) Number of non judge administrative staff: 58
If possible, could you categorise between:
§ non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges (case file preparation, assistance during the hearing, keeping the minutes of the meetings, helping to prepare the decisions) such as registrars: 11
§ staff in charge of different administrative tasks as well as of the management of the courts (human resources management, material and equipment management, financial management, etc): 43
§ technical staff and staff in charge of maintenance functions: 4
d) Annual budget of the court (in €): c/a 1,270,000.00 €
Does this amount include salaries? Yes
If yes, does it include salaries for the whole staff or for the non judicial staff only?
This amount includes salaries for the whole staff (judicial, non judicial and judges).
Part II – Republic of Croatia - QUESTIONNAIRE
I. The situation of the judicial timeframes in your court
1. If appropriate, please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases in civil and administrative matter.
|
Civil cases |
Administrative cases |
Divorce |
Employment dismissal |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
2752 |
- |
140 |
1260 |
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
2685 |
- |
||
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
1834 |
- |
||
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
435 |
- |
||
|
Average length of proceedings (from date of filing the case to the court*) |
to 3 Months – 878 3-6 Months –296 6-12 Months- 400 1 year and more – 1111 |
- |
* If you cannot calculate the average length from the date of filing the case to the court, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
NOTE:
The average length was calculated by the example of the last two years (2003-2004).
In statistic data our court according to the official statistic regulation in our country, doesn’t have specified statistic data for divorce cases and employment dismissal cases, because they are included in statistic data for all kinds of civil cases.
2. If appropriate, criminal cases in courts – please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases and specify definitions of incoming cases, starting and ending point of timeframes and pending cases:
|
Criminal cases |
Robbery cases |
Intentional homicide |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
594 |
5 |
- |
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
590 |
2-3 |
- |
|
Annual number of convicted persons |
440 |
1 |
- |
|
Annual number of acquitted persons |
18 |
1 |
- |
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
357 |
3 |
- |
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
124 |
- |
|
|
Average length of proceedings (from the date of official charging*) |
to 3 Months – 174 3-6 Months – 60 6-12 Months- 83 1 year and more –273 |
- |
* If it is not possible to calculate the average length from the date of official charging, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
3. Do you have a way of analysing queuing time (time in which nothing happens with the case) during court procedures? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
All proceeding phases are monitored due to the Court’s Procedure Act. Each phase can be calculated from the court’s registers and acts themselves.
4. Do you have an internal procedure for evaluating and monitoring lengths of proceedings? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
Internal control is organising through the statistic data for time-period from assign a case by the judge until his first act in the case (max. 15-30 days) and also for time-period from the end of the procedure until the carrying out a verdict (max. 30-60 days).
5. Do you have indicators of performance and targets as regards timeframes of procedures? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
The length of the procedure is monitoring through the official statistic, during one year, and it is possible to see which of the cases last lass than 3 months, which last from 3-6 months, 6-12 Month and which of the cases last more than a year.
Also we have special statistic data for cases organised by the years of their beginning.
II. The relations between your court and the users of justice
6. Does your court have users’ or legal professionals’ surveys to measure public trust and satisfaction with the services delivered by the court? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
__NO__________________________________________________________
III. Specific initiatives carried on within your court as regards timeframes of procedure[7]
7. Does your court have practical experience in monitoring or reducing judicial timeframes? Has it in particular developed one or several specific initiatives in this field? Please specify.
8. What are the effects of this initiative? Please specify.
9. What could be the possible future modifications, which might improve the results of this initiative?
10. Does this initiative have the support of the responsible public authorities in your country? If so, please give details.
11. Do you believe this initiative to be usable in other courts in European states?
IV. Concrete proposals from your court as regards optimum and foreseeable timeframes
12. Please, submit your comments or suggestions for a practical implementation, at the court level, of the Framework-Programme: "A new objective for judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe", in particular as regards some (or all) of the following proposals:
a) ensuring the transparency on timeframes for the users (see Line of Action 3: improving the foreseeability of the timeframes)
b) reducing queuing times (see Line of Action 4: defining and monitoring standards for an optimum timeframe for each type of case)
c) ensuring a systematic reasoning of court decisions and ensuring a prompt delivery of decisions to the parties (see Line of Action 9: acting on quality of proceedings)
d) selecting cases according to their complexity (see Line of Action 10: defining priorities in case management)
e) organising trials to reduce waiting time, while paying special attention to victims and witnesses (see Line of Action 11)
f) setting up a procedure to revive a pending case (see Line of Action 12)
g) organisation of the transmission of a case from a non competent court to the competent court (see Line of Action 13: making more flexible the rules on territorial jurisdiction of first instance courts)
h) setting up "contracts of objective" between courts and lawyers (see Line of Action 16: organising the relationships with lawyers)
i) enhancing the responsibility of judicial experts as regards judicial timeframes (see Line of Action 17: improving the monitoring of compliance with the time-limits by judicial experts)
j) involving judicial professions in the efforts towards optimum and foreseeable timeframes (Line of Action 18: defining the modalities for having bailiffs, clerks / Rechtspfleger, notaries and all other professions involved in justice)
13. Please, feel free to comment on any other proposals included in the Framework-Programme.
AD III
Municipal Court of Varaždin was part of the Project called “Efficiency in judiciary in Republic of Croatia” in cooperation with Croatian Helsinki Committee for human rights, Croatian Law Center, and Canadian judges.
The judges of Municipal Court of Varaždin made a conclusion that efficiency in court procedures could be better trough the activities like:
-every day assignment of new cases,
-first activity in 15-30 days in each case,
-concentration of evidence,
-strengthening of court procedure discipline form all participants,
-increase number of cases in which the parts reach an agreement.
The Project lasted from October 2003 to September 2004 on the civil cases. The result of this project was a significant increase of solved cases. The 40% more cases were solved than in the year before.
AD IV
The proposals of our court are:
It is always possible to improve the procedure at the court and to shorten the time of the procedure.
First of all, the cases should not be in queuing time during court procedures, and they have to be permanently assigned to each judge. That should be a principle for all kind of cases.
In this way, the users of justice would immediately get acquainted with the case and they could expect that the case would end in a reasonable time.
The parties are expected to suggest all the evidences immediately, on the very start of the procedure. The court shouldn’t accept any suggestion of new evidence that the parties will make during the procedure or they should be punished through payment of the cost’s of the procedure (that is our oppinion only for civil cases).
Specially, all courts in Republic of Croatia should make efforts to solve old cases (the cases that last more than 3 years) and these cases should be assigned to the judges with most work-experience and efficiency.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
Network of Pilot-courts
Submitted by: SAVVAS RASPOPOULOS
(name) CHIEF REGISTRAR
pROPOSED court (Name): Supreme Court of Cyprus
address: CHARALAMBOS MOUSKOS STR.
1404 NICOSIA-CYPRUS
Contact person: CHIEF REGISTRAR
tel: 00-357-22-865717
E-mail: [email protected]
***
DESCRIPTION OF YOUR COURT
1. Please specify if your court is
a. a court of first instance or a higher instance court:
Higher Instance Court
(Final Appellate Court of the Republic)
b. a court of general jurisdiction or a specialised court (please specify):
General Jurisdiction
c. Please describe the structure of your court, in particular the number of specialised chambers:
Appellate Jurisdiction, 2 Revisional Jurisdiction, 3 Administrative Jurisdiction, 4 Electoral Jurisdiction, 5 Admiralty Jurisdiction, 6 Prerogative Writs Jurisdiction. It also acts as the Supreme Council of Judicature. It is also the Supreme Constitutional Court of Cyprus.
2. What is the average volume and the nature (civil, commercial, administrative, criminal, etc.) of the cases addressed each year in your court?
- Revisional Appeals 180 - Electoral Jurisdiction 1
- Civil Appeals 316 - References 1
- Criminal Appeals 336
- Family Court Appeals 22
- Recourses 1229
- Admiralty Jurisdiction 52
- Prerogative Writs Jurisdiction 205
3. Please describe the composition of the court judicial and non judicial staff
a. Number of judges: 13
b. If appropriate, number of prosecutors attached to the court: Prosecutors are members of the Attorney’s General Office-an Independent organ of the Republic.
c. Number of non judge administrative staff: 72
If possible, could you categorise between:
§ non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges (case file preparation, assistance during the hearing, keeping the minutes of the meetings, helping to prepare the decisions) such as registrars: 13 Legal Assistants who carry out the research regarding the administrative cases only.
§ staff in charge of different administrative tasks as well as of the management of the courts (human resources management, material and equipment management, financial management, etc): 1 Chief Registrar, 1 Assistant Chief Registrar, 7 Registrars, 2 Accountants, 2 Bailiffs.
§ technical staff and staff in charge of maintenance functions: No such staff. This function is provided by the Electromechanical Services, The Public Work Department and the I.T. Departments.
4. Annual budget of the court (in €): CY £ 15.820.299 / € 26.894.508
Does this amount include salaries? YES – NO
If yes, does it include salaries for the whole staff or for the non judicial staff only?
For the whole staff (included the salaries for the Judges of the Supreme Court, the District Court Judges, Specialised Court Judges such as Military Court, Rent Control Court, Industrial Dispute Court, Family Court, except the salaries of the Secretarial Staff which is paid by the Personnel Department of Ministry of Finance.
Part II – Cyprus - QUESTIONNAIRE
I. The situation of the judicial timeframes in your court
1. If appropriate, please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases in civil and administrative matter. For the year 2004
|
Civil cases First AppealsInstance |
Administrative cases First AppealsInstance |
Divorce First AppealsInstance |
Employment dismissal First AppealsInstance |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
|
|
|
|
|
Annual number of judicial decisions ** |
654 296 |
1305 170 |
1748 1 |
117*** 3 |
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
32146 533 |
2256 464 |
822 ----- |
1306 20
|
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
1308 15 |
110 20 |
5 ----- |
7 ---- |
|
Average length of proceedings (from date of filing the case to the court) |
Min. 1-2 2 Years Years |
Min. 1-2 2 Years Years |
1-2 6-10 Years Months |
1 6-10 Year Months |
** 30270 WITHDRAWN / SETTLED BEFORE TRIAL.
*** 1501 WITHDRAWN / SETTLED BEFORE TRIAL.
* If you cannot calculate the average length from the date of filing the case to the court, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
2. If appropriate, criminal cases in courts – please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases and specify definitions of incoming cases, starting and ending point of timeframes and pending cases:
|
Criminal cases First Appeals
|
Robbery cases First AppealsInstance |
Intentional homicide First AppealsInstance |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases * |
75450 336 |
|
|
|
Annual number of judicial decisions ** |
21267 267 |
5 ----- |
2 ----- |
|
Annual number of convicted persons |
54689 ----- |
3 ----- |
2 ----- |
|
Annual number of acquitted persons |
2133 ----- |
2 |
---- ----- |
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
30604 183 |
----- ---- |
---- ----- |
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
2 ----- |
----- ---- |
---- ----- |
|
Average length of proceedings (from the date of official charging*) |
1 year Up to 6 Months |
1 year Up to 6 Months |
1year Up to 6 Months |
*Traffic cases are included / ** 38246 CASES WITHDRAWN
* If it is not possible to calculate the average length from the date of official charging, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
3. Do you have a way of analysing queuing time (time in which nothing happens with the case) during court procedures? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
A CIVIL ACTIONS: when a case remains pending until service, the Registrars according to the Civil Procedure Rules control this. When a case remains pending until the completion of the pleadings, the queuing time is controlled by the Judge and the Registrars.
B CRIMINAL CASES: There is no queuing time, because immediately after filing a case, the case is fixed for hearing before the court and Judges control the procedure according to their timetable.
4. Do you have an internal procedure for evaluating and monitoring lengths of proceedings? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
SUPREME COURT: The Registries of each department supply the Chief Registrar with monthly and annual statistics concerning the flow of the cases.
FIRST INSTANCE COURTS: The Registries of each first instance court supply the Chief Registrar with monthly and annual statistics concerning the flow of the cases. Moreover, in civil cases by submitting statistics (every 3 months) for the cases which are noted more than 5 adjournments for hearing. Also at the end of every year an annual report is submitted to the Supreme Court for the work done by every Court Judge.
In Civil cases, those not proceeded to trial, are determined in a very short time (2 to 6 months from the date of their filing). Those, which are proceeded to trial, take considerably longer time, depending on their complexity. In Criminal cases where accused persons plea guilty, are determined within 2-3 months from the date of filing. Those, which proceed to trial are on average within 1,5 year from filing. No procedural delays are encountered in criminal cases. Regarding civil cases, there are procedural delays encountered at the pre-trial stage. Finally, with a Judicial Practice Direction of 2001(July) a person, who considers that his/ her case is delayed according to the rules, can apply to the Supreme Court for a non-stop hearing.
5. Do you have indicators of performance and targets as regards timeframes of procedures? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
Through the statistics that are given at the end of every month and every year.
Moreover, new systems of Office Automation, Legal Information System and Stenotype machines, is about to take place at the judiciary. Also substantial changes in the Rules of Civil and Criminal procedure including the submission of comprehensive written addressed, coupled with limitation of the time of oral addresses in civil and revisional jurisdiction appeals and the submission of skeletal addresses in criminal appeals against conviction.
II. The relations between your court and the users of justice
6. Does your court have users’ or legal professionals’ surveys to measure public trust and satisfaction with the services delivered by the court? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
The Statistics Department of the Government-Ministry of finance-periodically carries out statistical data’s. Researches given by daily newspapers and the media through questionnaires answered by the public, analysing the public satisfaction. Recent research showed a high level of satisfaction and trust by the public.
III. Specific initiatives carried on within your court as regards timeframes of procedure[8]
7. Does your court have practical experience in monitoring or reducing judicial timeframes? Has it in particular developed one or several specific initiatives in this field? Please specify.
This is achieved by statistics given by every court Registry at the end of every month and every year and through the systematic control of the procedure of cases especially old ones.
Moreover, a new Office Automation system, Legal Information System and Stenotype machines, is about to be formed at the whole judicial system for an easier way of work.
Also, Practice Directions and Circulars of the Supreme Court are published frequently.
8. What are the effects of this initiative? Please specify.
The effect of this initiative is having a quicker, faster and effective administration of justice.
9. What could be the possible future modifications, which might improve the results of this initiative?
Continue improvement and upgrade of Court system services.
10. Does this initiative have the support of the responsible public authorities in your country? If so, please give details.
The responsible public authorities support in all ways the judiciary. This also include a lot of expenditure to set up mechanism for an effective administration of justice i.e. a brand new Supreme Court building (fully advanced), new District Court building extensions and new information technology systems.
11. Do you believe this initiative to be usable in other courts in European states?
Yes.
IV. Concrete proposals from your court as regards optimum and foreseeable timeframes
12. Please, submit your comments or suggestions for a practical implementation, at the court level, of the Framework-Programme: "A new objective for judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe", in particular as regards some (or all) of the following proposals:
- ensuring the transparency on timeframes for the users (see Line of Action 3: improving the foreseeability of the timeframes)
The publication of data as to the length of proceedings, proposed in the Line of action 3 will most certainly assist court users in assessing the time needed for the conclusion of a case. However this may also create some problems because not all cases are the same. As the ECHR has stated in their judgments ‘ reasonable time’ depends on the complexity of the case and the conduct of the parties. Therefore a user may, based on the data provided, expect that a case will be concluded within a timeframe and then finds that the time needed for that timeframe has long been exceeded.
- reducing queuing times (see Line of Action 4: defining and monitoring standards for an optimum timeframe for each type of case)
However apart from these steps, which are taken by the courts, the individuals can bring to the attention of the court that a certain case has been delayed.
- ensuring a systematic reasoning of court decisions and ensuring a prompt delivery of decisions to the parties (see Line of Action 9: acting on quality of proceedings)
All judges must be well organised on preparing cases for giving decisions in order to ensure systematic reasoning on court decisions. According to the Cyprus Constitution, every court decision must be well reasoned for the correct appliance of justice.
In order to ensure a prompt delivery of decisions in Cyprus, a list of cases is given to the Chief Registrar by every Court Judge every 3 months, and this list is discussed by the full Judicature Council.
- selecting cases according to their complexity (see Line of Action 10: defining priorities in case management)
This line of action may create problems as to the criteria that must apply for a case to be given priority. Even if the criteria are laid down, difficulties may arise when deciding if these criteria actually apply for a case. On the other hand this may be of significance in cases where time is of essence to the outcome of the case.
- organising trials to reduce waiting time, while paying special attention to victims and witnesses (see Line of Action 11)
Trials should be organized in such a way so that the time that the court users have to wait is reduced to the minimum. One way of achieving this is by organizing the work of the court is such a way so that on the day of the court hearing no other case is heard. However this is not easy to achieve due to the heavy workload of courts, which does not, normally, permits them to assign a day solely to a case.
- setting up a procedure to revive a pending case (see Line of Action 12)
As mentioned above (see 12 (b) ) individuals should be allowed to submit complaints, to the Supreme Court, that there is some delay in a case. In Cyprus, such a procedure is available according to a Practice Direction (July 2001). ‘ Any person who considers that his / her case is delayed according to Procedure Rules, can apply to the Supreme Court for a non-stop hearing.’
- organisation of the transmission of a case from a non competent court to the competent court (see Line of Action 13: making more flexible the rules on territorial jurisdiction of first instance courts)
If the rules on territorial jurisdiction become more flexible this might result in unnecessary delay being avoided. A non competent court, with the agreement of the parties, may submit the case to the competent court.
- setting up "contracts of objective" between courts and lawyers (see Line of Action 16: organising the relationships with lawyers).
The Supreme Court of Cyprus, informs the Cyprus Bar Association, about any recommended amendments, in order to have their opinion / suggestions, which are taken into account, if they are achievable.
- enhancing the responsibility of judicial experts as regards judicial timeframes (see Line of Action 17: improving the monitoring of compliance with the time-limits by judicial experts)
Setting up a follow up mechanism for the experts reports within the court will involve a lot of expenditure and certain courts may not have the resources to achieve this.
- involving judicial professions in the efforts towards optimum and foreseeable timeframes (Line of Action 18: defining the modalities for having bailiffs, clerks / Rechtspfleger, notaries and all other professions involved in justice)
Closer cooperation between the different kinds of profession that play a part in the functioning of justice should be achieved. This would result in the better organization of time, which will lead to the decrease of the length of proceedings.
13. Please, feel free to comment on any other proposals included in the Framework-Programme.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
Network of Pilot-courts
Submitted by: Simona B r a d á č o v á
(name)
pROPOSED court (Name): District Court, Prague 1
address: ovocný trh 14, 100 00 prague 1, czech republic
Contact person: simona bradáčová
tel: 00 420 2 21 093 286
E-mail: [email protected]
***
DESCRIPTION OF YOUR COURT
1) Please specify if your court is
a) a court of first instance or a higher instance court:
Court of 1st. instance
b) a court of general jurisdiction or a specialised court (please specify):
Court of general jurisdiction for penal matters, civil matters, including family law matters, labour law, civil law, commercial law and executions
c) Please describe the structure of your court, in particular the number of specialised
chambers:
1. Penal senates (panels)
2. Civil senates (panels) – civil, custodianship, labour, commercial and execution matters
2) What is the average volume and the nature (civil, commercial, administrative, criminal, etc.) of the cases addressed each year in your court?
The annual average of new civil litigations is 5 265, there is no evidence at the moment
on number of new labour law cases, there is 136 divorce cases per year in the district. The average of new criminal cases per year is 1 450
3) Please describe the composition of the court judicial and non judicial staff
a) Number of judges: 29
b) If appropriate, number of prosecutors attached to the court: not available, as prosecution for Prague 1 and even in general, is independent organisational body
c) Number of non judge administrative staff: 50
d) If possible, could you categorise between:
e) non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges (case file preparation, assistance during the hearing, keeping the minutes of the meetings, helping to prepare the decisions) such as registrars: 13 higher court officials
f) staff in charge of different administrative tasks as well as of the management of the courts (human resources management, material and equipment management, financial management, etc): 20 (so called “administration of court”)
g) technical staff and staff in charge of maintenance functions: 17
4) Annual budget of the court (in €): 683 571 (19 140 000.- CZK)
Does this amount include salaries? NO
If yes, does it include salaries for the whole staff or for the non judicial staff only?
____________________________________________________________
Part II – czech republic - QUESTIONNAIRE
I. The situation of the judicial timeframes in your court
1) If appropriate, please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases in civil and administrative matter.
|
Civil cases |
Administrative cases |
Divorce |
Employment dismissal |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
5265 (2004 data) |
Xxx |
136 |
31 |
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
6052 (2004 data) |
Xxx |
119 |
12 |
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
3366 (as at Dec. 31, 2004) |
Xxx |
61 |
21 |
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
373 |
xxx |
0 |
2 |
|
Average length of proceedings (from date of filing the case to the court*) |
* |
* If you cannot calculate the average length from the date of filing the case to the court, how do you calculate length of proceedings? Such data are unavailable to the court – after termination of the case the so-called statistical list is completed, including among other things 1) date of commencement of the proceedings, 2) date of the first act in the case, 3) number of hearings, 4) date of the decision adopted by a court of first instance and 5) date on which the proceedings were finally completed. The data are then processed by the Czech Statistical Office, however the software available to the court does not enable to ascertain such data.
2) If appropriate, criminal cases in courts – please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases and specify definitions of incoming cases, starting and ending point of timeframes and pending cases:
|
Criminal cases |
Robbery cases |
Intentional homicide |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
1450/1750 (number of cases/number of persons |
41 |
Xxx |
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
1866/2264 |
61 |
Xxx |
|
Annual number of convicted persons |
2264 |
69 |
Xxx |
|
Annual number of acquitted persons |
85 |
23 |
xxx |
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
296/438 (as at Dec. 31, 2004) |
6/8 |
Xxx |
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
7/7 |
0 |
Xxx |
|
Average length of proceedings (from the date of official charging*) |
* |
* If it is not possible to calculate the average length from the date of official charging, how do you calculate length of proceedings? See the preceding table – the data are unavailable to the court, only files older than 3 and 5 years are monitored.
3) Do you have a way of analysing queuing time (time in which nothing happens with the case) during court procedures? NO – see above – data in respect of the length of proceedings are completed into statistical lists only after termination of the proceedings. Court administration only supervises acts concerning the files older than 3 years (a judge reports on such acts every 6 months) and 5 years (a judge reports on acts and expected conclusion of the case every 3 months).
4) Do you have an internal procedure for evaluating and monitoring lengths of proceedings? NO – see point 3
5) Do you have indicators of performance and targets as regards timeframes of procedures? NO – see point 3 – the Czech Statistical Office collects the data
II. The relations between your court and the users of justice
6) Does your court have users’ or legal professionals’ surveys to measure public trust and satisfaction with the services delivered by the court? NO
III. Specific initiatives carried on within your court as regards timeframes of procedure[9]
7) Does your court have practical experience in monitoring or reducing judicial timeframes? Has it in particular developed one or several specific initiatives in this field? Please specify. NO
8) What are the effects of this initiative? Please specify. xxxxxx
9) What could be the possible future modifications which might improve the results of this initiative? xxxxxx
10) Does this initiative have the support of the responsible public authorities in your country? If so, please give details. xxxxxxx
11) Do you believe this initiative to be usable in other courts in European states? xxxxx
IV. Concrete proposals from your court as regards optimum and foreseeable timeframes
12) Please, submit your comments or suggestions for a practical implementation, at the court level, of the Framework-Programme: "A new objective for judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe", in particular as regards some (or all) of the following proposals:
- ensuring the transparency on timeframes for the users (see Line of Action 3: improving the foreseeability of the timeframes) A general problem concerning the length of judicial proceedings is caused by insufficient personnel and material background of courts. Introduction of the function of the assistant to a judge (the issue being discussed for several years now) also in courts of 1st and 2nd instance would speed up judicial decisions. Judges would not have to perform simple administrative acts (requests to pay judicial fees, requests to supplement statements and designation of the evidence) and files would be immediately prepared for the first hearing and could be quickly decided. It is however impossible to define types of cases and set the length of proceedings in legal regulations. All cases are individual, the length of proceedings depends on complexity of the evidence in proceedings – whether difficult evidence by experts would be necessary, etc. It is also necessary to mention inactivity of parties themselves and their delay when designating evidence and supplementing statements, excusing themselves for being unable to attend the hearing, etc.; according to my experience, these are not isolated cases.
- reducing queuing times (see Line of Action 4: defining and monitoring standards for an optimum timeframe for each type of case) – see point a)
- ensuring a systematic reasoning of court decisions and ensuring a prompt delivery of decisions to the parties (see Line of Action 9: acting on quality of proceedings) these requirements are clearly defined by law – particulars of the decision are clearly specified in the Criminal Procedure Code and the Civil Procedure Code and the time-limit for preparation of a written judgment is set as well – criminal cases: 10 days, civil cases: 30 days.
- selecting cases according to their complexity (see Line of Action 10: defining priorities in case management) Legal regulation in the Czech Republic is set precisely as stipulated in Line of Action 10 – i.e. time schedule of work is clearly defined, and the computer system assigns cases to individual judges according to this time schedule (guarantee of court independency and the principle of statutory judge). I can see problems in setting rules for identification of “urgent” cases (see Line of Action 10 – point 78). Even today, matters handled within proceedings on issuing a payment order (or within criminal proceedings on issuing a criminal order) might be considered as such cases. However, in majority cases, an appeal is filed against payment orders, in worse cases a defendant does not exist anymore (legal entities) or his whereabouts are unknown (physical persons). In such case the search for such persons or appointment of a guardian may last at least several months.
- organising trials to reduce waiting time, while paying special attention to victims and witnesses (see Line of Action 11) as for point 80 of Line of Action 11 – if I understand it correctly – each witness and participant are called to attend the hearing at a specific hour. As for points 81 – 83 – I am unable to provide my opinion, this concerns rather criminal proceedings.
- setting up a procedure to revive a pending case (see Line of Action 12) according to my opinion, it is impossible to speak about “revival” (from the point of view of legal terminology) if the case was not completed yet, however, the amended Act on courts and judges enables a superior court to order a court of lower instance to deal with the case if there seem to be delay in the matter.
§ 174a of the Act on Courts and Judges (No. 6/2002 Coll.)
Petition for determining the time-limit for performing acts in proceedings
a) Where it is the opinion of a participant or a party to the proceedings that his complaint concerning delay in the proceedings filed with a relevant authority of the state court administration was not disposed of properly, he may file a petition requesting the court to determine the time-limit for performance of the act in the proceedings which is delayed according to his opinion (hereafter “the petition for determining the time-limit).
b) The petition for determining the time-limit shall be filed with the court affected by the challenged delay in the proceedings. It has to be obvious from the petition who is filing it (hereafter “the Petitioner”), what case and what act in the proceedings are involved, what is the delay in proceedings according to the Petitioner and what is the Petitioner seeking to achieve; the petition shall include the designation of the challenged court, signature and the date.
c) The court affected by the delay in the proceedings shall refer the petition for determining the time-limit and its statement to a court competent to decide on the petition within 5 working days of receiving the petition at the latest; the court shall inform the petitioner accordingly. A court competent to decide on the petition in civil and criminal proceedings shall be the court of the next higher instance in the case that the petition is held against a district, regional or high court, or the Supreme administrative court in the case that the petition is held against a regional court in the matter of administrative justice; where the petition is held against the Supreme court or the Supreme administrative court, another panel of such court assigned according to the work time-schedule shall decide on the petition (hereafter “the competent court”).
d) The petitioner shall be the party to the proceedings. Unless this Act stipulates otherwise, provisions of parts one and three of the Civil Procedure Code shall apply appropriately to the proceedings on the petition for determining the time-limit.
e) The competent court shall decide on the petition for determining the time-limit in its resolution. It shall dismiss the petition in the case that the petitioner did not file the complaint concerning the delay in the proceedings, or in the case that the petition was filed by a party not entitled to file it, or in the case that the petitioner failed to correct or supplement the petition properly within the determined time-limit; otherwise, it shall decide on the petition without hearing within 20 working days of the case being submitted to such court, or of the day the petition was properly corrected or supplemented.
f) The competent court shall dismiss the petition in the case that the court against which the petition is held performed already the challenged act in proceedings specified in the petition; it shall proceed in the same manner if it arrives at the conclusion that there is no delay in the proceedings.
g) In the case that the competent court arrives at the conclusion that the petition for determining the time-limit is justified as in view of complexity of the case, significance of the object of the proceedings from the petitioner’s point of view, procedure by participants or parties to the proceedings and the procedure of the court, there is delay in the proceedings, it shall determine the time-limit for performing the act in the proceedings challenged in the petition; the court competent to perform the act in the proceedings shall be bound by this time-limit. In the case that the petition is justified, the state shall pay the costs of proceedings.
h) The resolution by which the competent court decides on the petition for determining the time-limit shall be delivered to the petitioner and to the court against which it is held. No appeal against the court’s decision on the petition for determining the time-limit is permitted.
g. organisation of the transmission of a case from a non competent court to the competent court (see Line of Action 13: making more flexible the rules on territorial jurisdiction of first instance courts) According to my opinion, the territorial jurisdiction rules are clearly defined; in the case that a judge ascertains that he is not competent from the territorial point of view, he shall decide immediately. The file is thus completed and in such case there is no reason for proceeding slowly and with delay.
h. setting up "contracts of objective" between courts and lawyers (see Line of Action 16: organising the relationships with lawyers) Such procedure is not considered in our legal environment at present time.
i. enhancing the responsibility of judicial experts as regards judicial timeframes (see Line of Action 17: improving the monitoring of compliance with the time-limits by judicial experts) According to my opinion, our legal regulation in this respect is sufficient – the resolution on appointment of a judicial expert has to include a time-limit set for preparation of the expert opinion, in the case of failure to meet the time-limit, the fine amounting to CZK 50,000 may be imposed on the expert on the grounds of delay.
j. involving judicial professions in the efforts towards optimum and foreseeable timeframes (Line of Action 18: defining the modalities for having bailiffs, clerks / Rechtspfleger, notaries and all other professions involved in justice) As for the speed of work performed by bailiffs, it is the matter of personnel and material background provided by the Ministry – the Ministry determines in its tables number of judges in individual courts (nobody knows what are the criteria) as well as the number of bailiffs – all this depends on financial sources available from the state budget – in view of classification of bailiffs into salary categories/tariffs – the level of salaries is really very sad – exaggerated motivation and enthusiasm cannot be expected from them.
13) Please, feel free to comment on any other proposals included in the Framework-Programme.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
Network of Pilot-courts
Submitted by: Chief ADviser klaus rugaard
(NAMe)
pROPOSED court (Name): Retten I Esbjerg (District Court of Esbjerg) ______________________________
address: rolfsgade 94-96
6700 Esbjerg
Denmark
______________________________
Contact person: MANAging JUdge
MRs. ULLA FROM PEDERSEN
______________________________
tel: (+45) 79 13 66 77
______________________________
E-mail: [email protected]
______________________________
***
DESCRIPTION OF YOUR COURT
- Please specify if your court is
- a court of first instance or a higher instance court:
District Court of Esbjerg is a first instance court.
- a court of general jurisdiction or a specialised court (please specify):
It is a court of general jurisdiction.
- Please describe the structure of your court, in particular the number of specialised chambers:
There are not any specialised chambers in the court. The court handles civil cases (incl. commercial and administrative cases), and criminal cases. The judges are not specialised. The court also handles enforcement cases and probate cases. It has a function of registrating rights of real estate too.
- What is the average volume and the nature (civil, commercial, administrative, criminal, etc.) of the cases addressed each year in your court?
- Civil cases (2004): 1.941
- Criminal cases (2004): 2.328
- Enforcement cases (2004): 3.768
- Probate cases (2004): 1.047
- Real estate (2004): 47.443
- Please describe the composition of the court judicial and non judicial staff
- Number of judges: 3 judges (plus 5 judicial officers)
- If appropriate, number of prosecutors attached to the court: 10________
- Number of non judge administrative staff: 24
If possible, could you categorise between:
non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges (case file preparation, assistance during the hearing, keeping the minutes of the meetings, helping to prepare the decisions) such as registrars: 19
staff in charge of different administrative tasks as well as of the management of the courts (human resources management, material and equipment management, financial management, etc): 3
technical staff and staff in charge of maintenance functions: 2
- Annual budget of the court (in €): App. 1.750.000 euro
Does this amount include salaries? YES – NO
If yes, does it include salaries for the whole staff or for the non judicial staff only?
It includes salaries (app. 1.480.000 euro) for the whole staff
PART II – DENMARK - QUESTIONNAIRE
I. The situation of the judicial timeframes in your court
· If appropriate, please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases in civil and administrative matter.
Answer: The numbers are bases on 2004-statistics.
|
Civil cases |
Administrative cases |
Divorce |
Employment dismissal |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
1.941 |
O |
130 |
No statistics |
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
1.991 |
0 |
72 |
- |
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
335 |
0 |
0 |
- |
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
4 |
O |
O |
- |
|
Average length of proceedings (from date of filing the case to the court*) |
9,2 month |
0 |
2 month |
- |
* If you cannot calculate the average length from the date of filing the case to the court, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
· If appropriate, criminal cases in courts – please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases and specify definitions of incoming cases, starting and ending point of timeframes and pending cases:
Answer: The numbers are based on 2004 statistics:
|
Criminal cases |
Robbery cases |
Intentional homicide |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
2.331 |
24 |
0 |
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
1.110 |
24 |
0 |
|
Annual number of convicted persons |
2.286 |
24 |
0 |
|
Annual number of acquitted persons |
50 |
1 |
0 |
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
275 |
0 |
0 |
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Average length of proceedings (from the date of official charging*) |
49 days |
49 days |
0 |
* If it is not possible to calculate the average length from the date of official charging, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
· Do you have a way of analysing queuing time (time in which nothing happens with the case) during court procedures? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
The Danish Courts apply computer systems for processing of cases in both civil and criminal matters. These systems have an integrated system for registering time limits which means that there are a continuous monitoring of all cases and the time of processing each case, i.e. the time from date of filing the case to its completion. This system means that in reality there are no time in which nothing happens with a case – queuing time.
Criminal cases are set down for trial a few days after they have been received. The courts seek to limit the delay between issue of proceedings and trial to a minimum, and in most cases the delay is less than 60 days. If a new date has to be fixed for the trial or if a trial already instituted has to be stayed or adjourned then a new trial will be set down as quickly as possibly. In those cases where this is not possible the case will be monitored via the system for registering time limits.
Civil cases are submitted for pre-trial proceedings immediately upon filing of the case. The length of the pre-trial proceedings depends on the nature of the case. The actual pre-trial proceedings and fixing of time limits for filing of pleadings are monitored via the system for registering time limits. As for further planning of the processing of each case please see our answer under III.
_______________
· Do you have an internal procedure for evaluating and monitoring lengths of proceedings? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
Joint answer to 4 and 5:
The Danish Courts have drawn up some general targets for the Danish district courts as for the time of processing each case. For each district court an annual account is elaborated which states the court’s productivity and the length of time it takes to reach a decision and/or verdict. This account is based on a number of statistical information which may be drawn directly from the computer systems for processing of cases and on the court’s own report on the full-time equivalent consumption – i.e. used employee time.
The 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 7 divisions.
Both the court account and the ongoing statistics review whether the general target figures are met. The District Court of Esbjerg meets the targets.
It is the Danish Courts’ target that 58 per cent of the civil cases are to be completed within 1 year from filing of the case. At the District Court of Esbjerg 81.6 per cent of the cases are completed within 1 year.
It is the Danish Courts’ target that 63 per cent of the criminal cases are to be completed within 2 months and 95 per cent within 6 months. At the District Court of Esbjerg 75.2 per cent of the cases are completed within 2 months and 96.8 per cent within 6 months.
_______________
· Do you have indicators of performance and targets as regards timeframes of procedures? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
see answer under 4
_______________
II. The relations between your court and the users of justice
· Does your court have users’ or legal professionals’ surveys to measure public trust and satisfaction with the services delivered by the court? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
The Danish Courts effect users’ surveys on a regular basis, last time was in the spring of 2005. Each district court hands out questionnaires to users, e.g. lawyers, prosecutors, parties and witnesses in civil cases and defendants and witnesses in criminal cases.
The answers are analysed by a management firm, and a general national result is elaborated together with each court’s result.
The 2005 survey showed that more than 90 per cent of the users at the District Court of Esbjerg were very satisfied or satisfied with the court. More than 90 per cent were very satisfied or satisfied with the court’s employees, and almost 90 per cent were very satisfied or satisfied with the court’s processing of the case.
_________________
III. Specific initiatives carried on within your court as regards timeframes of procedure[10]
· Does your court have practical experience in monitoring or reducing judicial timeframes? Has it in particular developed one or several specific initiatives in this field? Please specify.
· What are the effects of this initiative? Please specify.
· What could be the possible future modifications which might improve the results of this initiative?
· Does this initiative have the support of the responsible public authorities in your country? If so, please give details.
· Do you believe this initiative to be usable in other courts in European states?
IV. Concrete proposals from your court as regards optimum and foreseeable timeframes
· Please, submit your comments or suggestions for a practical implementation, at the court level, of the Framework-Programme: "A new objective for judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe", in particular as regards some (or all) of the following proposals:
- ensuring the transparency on timeframes for the users (see Line of Action 3: improving the foreseeability of the timeframes)
- reducing queuing times (see Line of Action 4: defining and monitoring standards for an optimum timeframe for each type of case)
- ensuring a systematic reasoning of court decisions and ensuring a prompt delivery of decisions to the parties (see Line of Action 9: acting on quality of proceedings)
- selecting cases according to their complexity (see Line of Action 10: defining priorities in case management)
- organising trials to reduce waiting time, while paying special attention to victims and witnesses (see Line of Action 11)
- setting up a procedure to revive a pending case (see Line of Action 12)
- organisation of the transmission of a case from a non competent court to the competent court (see Line of Action 13: making more flexible the rules on territorial jurisdiction of first instance courts)
- setting up "contracts of objective" between courts and lawyers (see Line of Action 16: organising the relationships with lawyers)
- enhancing the responsibility of judicial experts as regards judicial timeframes (see Line of Action 17: improving the monitoring of compliance with the time-limits by judicial experts)
- involving judicial professions in the efforts towards optimum and foreseeable timeframes (Line of Action 18: defining the modalities for having bailiffs, clerks / Rechtspfleger, notaries and all other professions involved in justice)
· Please, feel free to comment on any other proposals included in the Framework-Programme.
Answers to III and IV as regards civil cases:
III. Specific initiatives carried on within your court as regards timeframes of procedure
7. Answer:
The District Court of Esbjerg has wide practical experience in improved efficiency as regards processing of cases in civil matters.
After negotiations a fixed percentage distribution of cases between the lawyers has been determined. A new case is automatically assigned to the lawyer who is next in line.
In 2000 the court participated in a pilot project on process control. After the project was completed the court made the procedures permanent, and now they are followed by all the court’s lawyers.
The main features are:
In compliance with the Danish Administration of Justice Act a time limit for filing of a defence has been fixed at 14 days from service of the writ. If a defence has not been received in time judgment will be given against the defendant in default to pay the plaintiff’s claim.
If a defence is filed a time limit of 3 weeks are fixed for filing of a reply, unless - based on information in the writ and defence - it is more expedient to fix a time limit for draft list of questions to be answered by experts or the case without further pre-trial proceedings may be set down for trial.
At the same time as a time limit is fixed for filing of a reply (or list of questions to be answered by experts or anything else) a pre-trial hearing is scheduled to be held as soon as possible and within 3 weeks (if the case cannot be set down for trial immediately). If both parties are represented by a lawyer the meeting is held as a conference call.
During the conference call (the pre-trial hearing)
- a timetable is scheduled for the continued pre-trial proceedings, including further pleadings as well as any list of questions to be answered by experts, submission to the Retslægerådet (the Danish Medical Legal Council), the Arbejdsskadestyrelsen (the Danish National Board of Industrial Injuries), etc. and the case is set down for trial,
- all procedural steps, time limits and the time and duration of the trial are negotiated and agreed during the meeting between the parties’ lawyers (the parties),
- the parties determine which effect non-filing of pleadings shall have, and the court uses these default effects (default judgment or dismissal) if the time limits for filing are not observed,
- the agreements entered into, all time limits and the date fixed for trial are immediately registered in the court records,
- the parties’ lawyers (the parties) receive a transcript of the court records immediately after the meeting and no later than one week after the meeting,
The cases are never stayed or adjourned indefinitely.
All hearings are held at a specific time according to prior agreement with the parties’ lawyers or as the parties have been notified beforehand.
At the same time as a case is set down for judgment the court notifies the parties as specified by the Administration of Justice Act when judgment will be delivered. Or, if the parties waive service and notice, when judgment will be delivered at the latest. In accordance with the Administration of Justice Act judgments are always delivered no later than 6 weeks after the case has been set down for judgment. By far the main part of the judgments is delivered considerably sooner.
8. answer:
Since 2000 the number of pending cases has decreased drastically. As per 1 January 2001 there were 649 pending cases and as per 21 June 2005 there were 335 cases.
9. answer:
The results could be further improved if external authorities, such as e.g. the Medical Legal Council and the National Board of Industrial Injuries reduced their timeframes for processing of cases. A possible future modification could be to provide a statutory basis stating that the public authorities which make statements to be used in legal proceedings are requested to announce upon receipt of the case when they will present such statements, and that a target is set for the timeframe of elaborating such statements, i.e. how long does it normally take.
Another possible modification could be to provide a statutory basis for the courts to be able to give default effect (i.e. by entering e.g. a no-answer default judgment or a post-answer default judgment) to the parties’ non-compliance with time limits for proposals and for presenting their opinion on proposals for lists of questions to be answered by experts and/or for such experts.
10. answer:
Yes. The provisions on default effects under the Administration of Justice Act were tightened in 1997 with a view to a more prompt attention to civil cases. The pilot project on process control was initiated by the Domstolsstyrelsen (the Danish Court Administration).
11. answer:
Yes. We find that the general strategies of
- always fixing time limits,
- coming to an agreement with the parties’ lawyers (the parties) at an early stage in the process on time limits and the development of the case as well as the trial date,
- imposing default effects when time limits are not observed, and that the courts also in practice impose default effects when pleadings are not received in time, and
- announcing the date of delivering judgment when the case is set down for judgment, and that judgment has to be delivered within a specific time limit,
could also be used by the courts in other EU member states.
IV. Concrete proposals from your court as regards optimum and foreseeable timeframes
12. answer:
a. If all time limits and the trial date as described under III. 7 are agreed with the parties at an early stage in the process the parties will immediately know the development of the case, and when they may expect it to be completed.
b. If a meeting is held at an early stage in the process where the parties agree on the development of the case, there will be no queuing problems as the time up to the actual trial is used for the necessary pre-trial proceedings.
c. One could ensure well reasoned judgments by giving the lawyers the necessary time to process and consider the cases as well as to prepare the judgment. Process control gives the lawyers more time, as the case - once the schedule is determined and observed by the parties – does not need processing again by a lawyer until at the trial. Prompt delivery of judgments is ensured by statutory provisions on specific time limits for delivery as well as on notification of the time of delivery of judgment when the case is set down for judgment.
d. Work is under way in Denmark as regards a bill on processing of smaller cases.
e. Cases are always set down for trial for a specific date. Witnesses are summoned by the parties’ lawyers. In large cases the lawyers are requested during the conference call (the pre-trial hearing) to prepare a joint schedule for the trial, including when the witnesses are summoned.
f. A specific complaints system for slow processing of cases will take up resources which at present are used for processing of cases. We already have a system of very careful statistical follow-up on the courts, and it is possible to complain about the court’s decision and the lawyers.
g. Pursuant to the Administration of Justice Act a non competent court shall transmit a case to the competent court if the court does not have territorial jurisdiction.
h. The pilot project on process control was initiated after discussions with representatives from the Advokatrådet (the General Council of the Danish Bar and Law Society). In each case the schedule is determined and the trial date is fixed according to agreement between the parties’ lawyers.
i. Each year the court determines a target for number of cases expected to be processed, and an annual account is prepared as regards target attainment. This court account is made public. During the year there are monthly statistical follow-ups.
j. In Denmark enforcement proceedings and notarial acts are an integrated part of the court and as such they are subject to the same statistical requirements. In large enforcement proceedings process control is applied in the same way as in civil cases. At staff meetings and consultation committee meetings the court’s clerical staff is involved in the determination of targets and the preparation of court accounts as well as the planning of the daily procedures.
Answers to III and IV as regards criminal cases:
III. Specific initiatives carried on within your court as regards timeframes of procedure:
The District Court of Esbjerg tries criminal cases as the court of first instance. It is the Danish Courts’ objective to be an institution which performs this task with the utmost quality, service and efficiency respecting the rights of each individual.
In order to live up to this objective the court has prepared internal guidelines for the setting down and processing of criminal cases and the court holds joint meetings with representatives from the prosecution service and the judicial districts’ defence attorneys, where general questions on planning and conduct of criminal cases are discussed. The result of holding these meetings is that wherever possible the defence attorneys file motions for evidence and motions for character evidence to the prosecution service immediately upon having reviewed the case, and that the prosecution service does not file the specific criminal cases with the courts until the pre-trial work has been completed by the prosecution service and the defence attorneys’ motions for evidence etc. have been finished in order that unnecessary adjournments during trials are avoided.
The court endeavours to observe the timeframes for processing of cases which the Danish Courts have set as targets for the various types of cases tried by courts of first instance.
In order to live up to these targets the court registers all incoming criminal cases on the day they are received by the court and at the same time the case is set down for trial within the timeframe for processing of this specific case category allowing for the necessary time to process and complete the case on the same day or within a specific period of time. In order to facilitate the fixing of dates for trials the court has a list of the days the local prosecutors’ are attending hearings and trials in order that the court may set down a case for trial directly without prior agreement with the prosecution service as regards the trial date. The defence attorneys and prosecutors are notified of the trial date by letter whereas the other parties to the criminal case are summoned for the scheduled hearings. The setting down of hearings has to take place considering the statutory time limits for summoning of hearings in the Danish courts.
It is the court’s starting point that cases cannot be rescheduled unless decisive considerations for the parties to the case apply.
In criminal cases sentences are delivered during the final hearing of the case. In connection with the sentencing the parties to the criminal case are informed of the ratio decidendi of the case and they receive instructions on how to appeal. The delivered sentence will be forwarded to the parties of the criminal case within a week after the sentencing.
Pursuant to Danish law the court may set down a criminal case for sentencing. Pursuant to the Danish Administration of Justice Act a sentence in such situations shall be delivered no later than a week after the trial is completed.
The consequence of this procedure is that the processing of criminal cases at the District Court of Esbjerg is very short.
In our opinion the initiatives described above could also be introduced in other European countries which have a criminal justice system which is based on the same principles as the Danish system.
IV. Concrete proposals from your court as regards optimum and foreseeable timeframes
a. If the prosecution service and the defence attorney can clarify motions for evidence and questions concerning character evidence prior to the trial the defendant(s) may expect that sentence can be delivered upon completion of the trial, cf. Section 219(a) of the Administration of Justice Act, i.e. the day on which the case is tried by the court.
b. Under normal conditions queuing problems do not arise because the court’s work is planned in such a way that specific days each week are reserved for processing of criminal cases. Criminal cases are set down for trial in the order they are received by the court.
c. Pursuant to Section 219(a) of the Administration of Justice Act sentences in criminal cases shall as a principal rule be delivered on the day the trial is completed, however, there is statutory basis for suspending delivery of the sentence up to one week after the trial is completed.
d. Danish courts try all types of criminal cases, and Danish judges try all case categories.
e. The prosecution service prepares lists of evidence in criminal cases stating the date and time where the defendant(s) and witnesses are examined. The witnesses are summoned by the prosecution service to appear on the date and time stated in the list of evidence.
f. The judges make sure that motions for evidence leading to staying of a criminal case are followed up by fixing either official time limits or internal time limits. The Administration of Justice Act provides for the possibility to complain about the court’s decisions and the lawyers.
g. Detailed rules on jurisdiction in criminal cases are laid down in the Administration of Justice Act. Departure from these rules may under specific circumstances be decided by a high court, cf. Section 702 of the Administration of Justice Act, and by a district court based on witnesses domicile or if for some other special reason it is deemed expedient, cf. Section 703 of the Administration of Justice Act.
h. It would not be advisable to determine other targets for the processing of criminal cases other than what is stated at the beginning and what appears from the Administration of Justice Act’s paragraphs on processing of criminal cases.
i. Reference is made to the answers made as regards civil cases.
j. This question is not relevant to criminal cases.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
Network of Pilot-courts
Submitted by: MR Kari Kesiläinen
(name)
PROPOSED Court (Name): (a) The District Court of Turku
address: PL 376, 20101 TURKU, FINLAND
Contact person: CHIEF JUDGE ERKKI HÄMÄLÄINEN
tel: 358 10 364 6200
E-mail: [email protected]
***
DESCRIPTION OF YOUR COURT
1) Please specify if your court is
a. a court of first instance or a higher instance court:
TURKU DISTRICT COURT IS A TRIAL COURT THAT HAS A GENERAL JURISDICTION
b. a court of general jurisdiction or a specialised court (please specify):
A court of general jurisdiction.
c. Please describe the structure of your court, in particular the number of specialised chambers:
____________________________________________________________
2) What is the average volume and the nature (civil, commercial, administrative, criminal, etc.) of the cases addressed each year in your court?
3) Please describe the composition of the court judicial and non judicial staff
a. Number of judges:
b. If appropriate, number of prosecutors attached to the court: -
c. Number of non judge administrative staff:
If possible, could you categorise between:
§ non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges (case file preparation, assistance during the hearing, keeping the minutes of the meetings, helping to prepare the decisions) such as registrars:
§ staff in charge of different administrative tasks as well as of the management of the courts (human resources management, material and equipment management, financial management, etc):
§ technical staff and staff in charge of maintenance functions: 11
4) Annual budget of the court (in €):
Does this amount include salaries?
If yes, does it include salaries for the whole staff or for the non judicial staff only?
For the whole staff.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
Network of Pilot-courts
Member state: Finland
Submitted by: MR Kari Kesiläinen
(name)
PROPOSED Court (Name): (b) The Court of Appeal of Rovaniemi
address: PL 8210, 96101 ROVANIEMI, FINLAND
EMAIL [email protected]
Contact person: court of appeal judge ritva supponen
tel: 358 10 36 41800 (operator)
E-mail: [email protected]
***
DESCRIPTION OF YOUR COURT
1) Please specify if your court is
a. a court of first instance or a higher instance court:
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF ROVANIEMI IS AN APPELLATE LEVEL COURT
b. a court of general jurisdiction or a specialised court (please specify):
A court of general jurisdiction at appellate level.
c. Please describe the structure of your court, in particular the number of specialised chambers:
The court operates in two chambers with general jurisdiction and each chamber in two teams with 3 justices and 3,5 referendaries. The Court is headed by the President with an assisting group and a chief secretary.
What is the average volume and the nature (civil, commercial, administrative, criminal, etc.) of the cases addressed each year in your court?
civil cases 203
criminal cases 733
others 65
2) Please describe the composition of the court judicial and non judicial staff
Number of judges: 13
k. If appropriate, number of prosecutors attached to the court: - n/a
l. Number of non judge administrative staff: 29
If possible, could you categorise between:
§ non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges (case file preparation, assistance during the hearing, keeping the minutes of the meetings, helping to prepare the decisions) such as registrars: 20
§ staff in charge of different administrative tasks as well as of the management of the courts (human resources management, material and equipment management, financial management, etc): 7
§ technical staff and staff in charge of maintenance functions: 2
3) Annual budget of the court (in €): 3.313.193 euro
Does this amount include salaries? Yes
If yes, does it include salaries for the whole staff or for the non judicial staff only?
For the whole staff.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
Network of Pilot-courts
Member state: finland
Submitted by: MR Kari Kesiläinen
(name)
PROPOSED C ourt (Name): (c) The Regional Administrative Court
address: PL 32, 20101 TURKU, FINLAND
Contact person: MS HANNAMAIJA FALCK, THE ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER, JUDGE
tel: 358 101 36 42402
E-mail: [email protected]
***
DESCRIPTION OF YOUR COURT
1) Please specify if your court is
a) a court of first instance or a higher instance court:
An appeal court, hears appeals against the acts of authorities.
b) a court of general jurisdiction or a specialised court (please specify):
An administrative court of general jurisdiction.
c) Please describe the structure of your court, in particular the number of specialised chambers:
The Chief Justice and three sections, each with 5-6 judges and 7 court counsellors/referendaries.
2) What is the average volume and the nature (civil, commercial, administrative, criminal, etc.) of the cases addressed each year in your court?
The annual number of incoming cases (all administrative cases) has varied between 2260-2860 in the years 2000-2004
3) Please describe the composition of the court judicial and non judicial staff
a) Number of judges: 18
b) If appropriate, number of prosecutors attached to the court: -
c) Number of non judge administrative staff: 34
If possible, could you categorise between:
1) non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges (case file preparation, assistance during the hearing, keeping the minutes of the meetings, helping to prepare the decisions) such as registrars: 21 court cousellors/referendaries
a) staff in charge of different administrative tasks as well as of the management of the courts (human resources management, material and equipment management, financial management, etc): 2
§ technical staff and staff in charge of maintenance functions: 11
4) Annual budget of the court (in €): 3 370 000
Does this amount include salaries? YES
If yes, does it include salaries for the whole staff or for the non judicial staff only?
For the whole staff.
PART II – Finland – (a) District Court of Turku - QUESTIONNAIRE
Court: (a) District Court of Turku
I. The situation of the judicial time frames in your court
1. If appropriate, please complete this table concerning the number of cases/lenght of proceedings/pending cases in civil and administrative matter.
Annual number of incoming cases: civil cases 3952, divorce 665
Annual number of judicial decisions: civil cases 3968, divorce 671
Number of pending cases: civil cases 908
Average lenght of proceedings: civil cases 11 months
2. If appropriate, criminal cases in courts - please complete this table concerning the number of cases/lenght of proceedings/pending cases and specify definitions of incoming cases, starting and ending point of timeframes and pending cases.
Annual number of incoming cases: criminal cases 2594
Annual number of judicial decisions: criminal cases 2559
Annual number of convicted persons: criminal cases 3031
Annual number of acquitted persons: ?
Number of pending cases: criminal cases 733
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years: criminal cases 10
Average length of proceedings: criminal cases 3,5 months
3. Do you have a way of analysing queuing time (time in which nothing happens with the case) during court procedures?
4. Do you have an internal procedure for evaluating and monitoring lengths of proceedings?
Answer to questions n:o 3 and 4
The statistical registrar systems in courts provides the chief judges with information on the situation of each individual case on a daily basis. When there is a case with a significantly long proceeding or time in which nothing happens with the case it is possible to ask the judge in charge to explain the reasons for delay.
5. Do you have indicators of performance and targets as regards timeframes of procedures?
The court management sets annually a target as regards average duration of procedures for each type of cases (civil, criminal etc.) . This target is set on a court level but not to an individual judge.
II. The relations between your court and the users of justice
6. Does your court have users’ or legal professionals’ surveys to measure public trust and satisfaction with the services delivered by the court?
The court has not organised, nor planned, surveys of its own. However, a few years ago a nation-wide survey to measure public trust with courts was published.
III. Specific initiatives carried on within your court as regards timeframes of procedure
7. Does your court have practical experience in monitoring or reducing judicial timeframes? Has it in particular developed one or several specific initiatives in this field?
8. What are the effects of this initiative?
9. What could be the possible future modifications which might improve the results of this initiative?
10. Does this initiative have the support of the responsible public authorities in your country?
11. Do you believe this initiative to be usable in other courts in European states?
Answer to questions n:o 7-11:
We have not had any special initiatives.
IV. Concrete proposals from your court as regards optimum and foreseeable timeframes
12. Please, submit your comments or suggestions for a practical implementation, at the court level, of the Framework-Programme: "A new objective for judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe", in particular as regards some (or all) of the following proposals:
a. ensuring the transparency on timeframes for the users (see Line of Action 3: improving the foreseeability of the timeframes)
According to Chapter 5 Section 18 of the Code of Judicial Procedure courts are obliged to
inform parties of the estimated timetable of the procedure.
b. reducing queuing times (see Line of Action 4: defining and monitoring standards for an optimum timeframe for each type of case)
c. ensuring a systematic reasoning of court decisions and ensuring a prompt delivery of decisions to the parties (see Line of Action 9: acting on quality of proceedings)
At the moment in Finland there is work going on to draft common standards and indicators to measure the quality of court procedures.
d. selecting cases according to their complexity (see Line of Action 10: defining priorities in case management)
e. organising trials to reduce waiting time, while paying special attention to victims and witnesses (see Line of Action 11)
f. setting up a procedure to revive a pending case (see Line of Action 12)
g. organisation of the transmission of a case from a non competent court to the competent court (see Line of Action 13: making more flexible the rules on territorial jurisdiction of first instance courts)
Here it is essential that the party involved is informed about the transmission.
h. setting up "contracts of objective" between courts and lawyers (see Line of Action 16: organising the relationships with lawyers)
No “contracts” have been set up. Nevertheless, there has been several negotiations and
discussions between judges and local lawyers in order to come up with common opinions and
guidelines on how to improve i.a. efficiency of justice as regards the time of procedure.
i. enhancing the responsibility of judicial experts as regards judicial timeframes (see Line of Action 17: improving the monitoring of compliance with the time-limits by judicial experts)
j. involving judicial professions in the efforts towards optimum and foreseeable timeframes (Line of Action 18: defining the modalities for having bailiffs, clerks / Rechtspfleger, notaries and all other professions involved in justice)
One has to bear in mind that in Finland the enforcement of judgments is not in the responsibility of courts.
PART II: Finland: (b) The Rovaniemi Court of Appeal
QUESTIONNAIRE
I. The situation of the judicial timeframes in your court
If appropriate, please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases in civil and administrative matter.
|
Civil cases |
Administrative cases |
Divorce |
Employment dismissal |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
203 |
1 |
7 |
|
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
210 |
3 |
||
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
130 |
1 |
4 |
|
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
- |
|||
|
Average length of proceedings (from date of filing the case to the court*) |
7,4 kk |
* If you cannot calculate the average length from the date of filing the case to the court, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
If appropriate, criminal cases in courts – please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases and specify definitions of incoming cases, starting and ending point of timeframes and pending cases:
|
Criminal cases |
Robbery cases |
Intentional homicide |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
732 |
16 |
7 |
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
768 |
6 |
5 |
|
Annual number of convicted persons |
|||
|
Annual number of acquitted persons |
|||
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
301 |
10 |
1 |
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
- |
||
|
Average length of proceedings (from the date of official charging*) |
4,8 kk |
* If it is not possible to calculate the average length from the date of official charging, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
*We calculate the lenght of proceedings from the date of filing the case.
Do you have a way of analysing queuing time (time in which nothing happens with the case) during court procedures? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
3) Yes
The cases are managed all the time. The preparation starts immediately after filing the case and it is supervised by the judge(justice) in charge of preparation. However, there is some waiting time before the case is heard, because the case must be prepared before the hearing (for example, getting responces and fixing trial dates) and because of preparion other cases. We have a computerised case management system called Lotus Notus, which contains information on the cases, their stages (filed, pending etc) and the preparation measures. This system offers possibilities for geneneral and ad hoc queries. With the help of this system the justice and the junior justice (referendary) monitor the progress of the cases (approximately 30-35 cases/justice), which they are in charge of.
Do you have an internal procedure for evaluating and monitoring lengths of proceedings? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
4) Yes
The lenghts of the proceedings can be evaluated and monitored with the help of statistical information. Some of the information is based on the Lotus Notes program. The rest of the information is gathered by the special questionary following up each case. The Lotus Notes program offers 16 different standard reports. The reports can also be produced by the Business Objects -product offering 28 different standard reports. This reporting system is designed by the Ministery of Justice for the common
purpose of all the six Courts of Appeal in Finland.
The most important statistics about the lenghts of the proceedings are those of the the backlogs, the databases of the timeframes, the databases of the cases decided more than four months ago (these cases are decided in written procedure, cases decided in trials must be handed out in one month) and the databases of the cases older than one year. Statistics are also tools for controlling the case management of the justice and referendary.
Since the 1 st of October 2003, the new sifting system was adopted in the Finnish Courts of Appeal. It means that the Court of Appeal verifies that the decision of the lower court is evidently correct.( this procedure is more effective and quicker than the normal one) The statistics are also gathered about the timeframes of those decisions. These decisions should be made in two months.
The databases mentioned above are monitored in our Court by the President and the leading justices of the four teams we have. In the case of delay the problems are to be solved by special arrangements.
Do you have indicators of performance and targets as regards timeframes of procedures? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
5) Yes
The targets concerning optimum timeframes are agreed every year in the budget negotiations between the Court of Appeal and the Ministery of Justice. The timeframes are similar to all civil and criminal cases. In this respect the budget system is different than that in the district courts, where the targets are set for different groups of civil and criminal cases.
As to the indicators see the above mentioned statistics and databases.
II. The relations between your court and the users of justice
Does your court have users’ or legal professionals’ surveys to measure public trust and satisfaction with the services delivered by the court? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
6) Yes
National Research Institute of Legal Policy has made a study aimed at compiling the appellants’ views on the civil trial and the appeal process. The research was conducted through a survey addressed to 300 private appellants from the jurisdictions of the Helsinki and Rovaniemi Courts of Appeal.( the English summary of this research: The Civil Procedure- Appellants’Experiences by Hertta Kallioinen, Research Communications no.62, www.om.fi/optula)
The Rovaniemi Court of Appeal and the districts courts under its jurisdiction are just going to adopt a new system to measure the quality of the procedure. One point of view in this project will be the public trust and the satisfaction on the court services
III. Specific initiatives carried on within your court as regards timeframes of procedure[11]
Does your court have practical experience in monitoring or reducing judicial timeframes? Has it in particular developed one or several specific initiatives in this field? Please specify.
The judicial timeframes in the Court of Appeal are based on the reform of appeal procedure in 1998 ( see; Justice Olavi Snellman, The Principles of Reformed Procedures in the Court of Appeal, www.oikeus.fi/18773.htm) In accordance with the reform the Rovaniemi Court of Appeal has established its own working methods. The main innovation has been the team system and the responsibility of each team to achieve its planned result each month( approximately 25 cases/team).
What are the effects of this initiative? Please specify.
The timeframes in our Court have been the sortest in the country. The working methods can be one explanion among others. Also the internal surveillance system together with the external one seems to have met its goals well.
What could be the possible future modifications which might improve the results of this initiative?
One future initiative could be more effective and tighter case management. One part of it could be the introduction of a trial window system in order to foresee the trials as early as possible. In this respect innovations from other countries are welcome. One important challange as to the timeframes is the cooperation with our interest groups; prosecutors and councels.
One innovation can also be the above mentioned system of quality measurement. The timeframes will be one part of it. The Rovaniemi Court of Appeal can adopt the system in tailored form and to be joined to this theme of pilots courts. The English translation of the project will be send to you when the measures are ready to be adopted.
Does this initiative have the support of the responsible public authorities in your country? If so, please give details.
Our iniativive to measure the quality of procedure is supported and sponsored by the Ministery of Justice. This system belongs to the larger Quality Project managed by the Rovaniemi Court of Appeal for six years. The project has mainly focused on the procedures in the district courts. The project has every year produced and published the reports of its working groups. This project is supported by its interests groups because they receive training and are able to discuss the working methods within this project. The project has also received the annual recognition from the Finnish Bar Association.
Do you believe this initiative to be usable in other courts in European states?
Our system for the quality measurement is now circulating for comments. The iniative could be usable in other courts, especially as far as the timeframes are concerned.
IV. Concrete proposals from your court as regards optimum and foreseeable timeframes
Please, submit your comments or suggestions for a practical implementation, at the court level, of the Framework-Programme: "A new objective for judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe", in particular as regards some (or all) of the following proposals:
ensuring the transparency on timeframes for the users (see Line of Action 3: improving the foreseeability of the timeframes)
reducing queuing times (see Line of Action 4: defining and monitoring standards for an optimum timeframe for each type of case)
ensuring a systematic reasoning of court decisions and ensuring a prompt delivery of decisions to the parties (see Line of Action 9: acting on quality of proceedings)
selecting cases according to their complexity (see Line of Action 10: defining priorities in case management)
organising trials to reduce waiting time, while paying special attention to victims and witnesses (see Line of Action 11)
setting up a procedure to revive a pending case (see Line of Action 12)
organisation of the transmission of a case from a non competent court to the competent court (see Line of Action 13: making more flexible the rules on territorial jurisdiction of first instance courts)
setting up "contracts of objective" between courts and lawyers (see Line of Action 16: organising the relationships with lawyers)
enhancing the responsibility of judicial experts as regards judicial timeframes (see Line of Action 17: improving the monitoring of compliance with the time-limits by judicial experts)
involving judicial professions in the efforts towards optimum and foreseeable timeframes (Line of Action 18: defining the modalities for having bailiffs, clerks / Rechtspfleger, notaries and all other professions involved in justice)
Some comments
IV
a) The Lotus Notes case management program serves our Court quite well. The future development could be the information supplied to parties. The next phase of the program will involve making selected information available over the intranet. If these changes of the program can be implemented, it will prove of great utility to parties and reduce the enquiries about the status of various cases.
Our internal directions for case management provided a tailored program for each case and directions how the parties should be informed. The program includes the estimated timeframe for written pre-trial phase and information about possible pre- trial hearings and trial itself. It’s a real challenge to develop this program more transparent for parties and the laywers. Other challenge will be the trial window system. That means that we must be ready to fix the trial date or period within which the trial will take place as soon as possible. In our system this means also fixed working plans in teams for months forward. Our regional hearings are managed and reservations for coutrooms done in coordination with our four teams. The problems will arise with busy procecutors and councels.
As to the cases decided in the written procedure it is also important that the parties are informed about the progress of the case. The parties must be provided a timetable and the priorities. According to our updated directions parties are to be informed that their case will be decided in written procedure and the estimated time for it.
e) As our Court organises the hearings detailed timetables are send beforehand to the parties. The councels and procecutors are provided for comments. Wittnesses are called in accordance with fixed time and heard by phone if possible.
f) As a pilot court we can try to implement this program in accordance with our pending Quality Project.
Please, feel free to comment on any other proposals included in the Framework-Programme.
Justice Ritva Supponen
The contact person for the Rovaniemi Court of Appeal
PART II: Questionnaire Finland
court (Name): (c) the Administrative Court of Turku
QUESTIONNAIRE
I. The situation of the judicial timeframes in your court
If appropriate, please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases in civil and administrative matter.
|
Civil cases |
Administrative cases |
Divorce |
Employment dismissal |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases (2004) |
2.310 |
|||
|
Annual number of judicial decisions (2004) |
2.481 |
|||
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year 2004) |
1.318 |
|||
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
- |
|||
|
Average length of proceedings at the moment (from date of filing the case to the court*) |
6,1 months |
* If you cannot calculate the average length from the date of filing the case to the court, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
If appropriate, criminal cases in courts – please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases and specify definitions of incoming cases, starting and ending point of timeframes and pending cases:
No criminal cases
Do you have a way of analysing queuing time (time in which nothing happens with the case) during court procedures? YES
If yes, please specify:
All the steps in the proceedings are registered into the IT-based case management system. All queuing times can be monitored and analysed.
Do you have an internal procedure for evaluating and monitoring lengths of proceedings? YES
If yes, please specify:
Statistics concerning pending and solved cases are easily available for the staff from the case management system. Case types which have been designated as urgent in legislation or in court’s own book of rules/rules of procedure can be monitored. Statistics concerning the oldest cases can be produced.
All the cases are registered on a certain judge or a referendary/court counsellor on the date of filing the case. The judges and the referendaries are expected to monitor their own cases. Head judge of each section monitors the cases. Also the management group, which consists of the Chief Judge and the head judges of the three sections monitor the cases. Three times a year the management group (meets every two weeks) analyses the statistics of the results, pending cases and the pending times.
In addition to the every day access to the case management system for the staff, the statistics are produced monthly and send by e-mail to the whole judicial staff. Sections have meetings at least four times a year to analyse the workload of the section and each judge and referendary and for the purpose of analysing the results, the situation of the pending cases and the length of proceedings. Old cases and cases designated as urgent are monitored.
Do you have indicators of performance and targets as regards timeframes of procedures? YES
If yes, please specify:
It has been agreed between the court and the MoJ at the annual negotiation of resources and targets that there should not be pending cases which are older than a year in the court. Old cases and cases designated as urgent are being carefully monitored. Reports of the situation at the end of each year are produced and published (also on the home pages of the court).
The Chief Judge and the head judges of the sections agree each year on the targets for the sections. For the year 2005 it has been agreed that appeals concerning city plans and other socially significant projects are being dealt with in an average time of five or six months, cases concerning transfer of guardianship are to be decided in four months and cases concerning services for the disabled in six months.
The average pending time of the cases concerning ordering to treatment in mental health matter in our court was shortened from one and half months to less than one month during the year 2004. The pending times of these cases are still under one month.
According to the court’s own book of rules the court’s decisions should be delivered to the parties within two weeks from the day the case was decided.
II. The relations between your court and the users of justice
Does your court have users’ or legal professionals’ surveys to measure public trust and satisfaction with the services delivered by the court? NO
There have been some general surveys by authorities and scholars.
III. Specific initiatives carried on within your court as regards timeframes of procedure[12]
Does your court have practical experience in monitoring or reducing judicial timeframes? Has it in particular developed one or several specific initiatives in this field? Please specify.
Yes we have. See the answers above.
In the year 2004 there was a special project to shorten the pending times of the cases concerning ordering to treatment in mental health matter after the Ombudsman visited the court and pointed out that the ECHR calls for these cases to be decided within one month’s time. By the decision of the Chief Judge all the phases of the procedure where shortened. The registration of new cases filed is to be done before other cases each morning, the files are delivered straight to the referendary. The time limits for statements and answers were shortened to ten days. Further clarifications from authorities are required by fax. The time reserved for the supervisory judge and other members of the panel to contemplate the case and the proposition of the referendary before the court session was shortened from the two weeks generally determined in the court’s book of rules. After the session the decision is to be written and send to the parties before other decisions of the day.
Another initiative to shorten the pending times is a memo for each case to write down the scheme of the procedure. The referendary/judge to whom the case is registered when filed writes down the steps of procedure which will be needed. The memo is used at least in complex cases or cases with an exceptional party or a legal expert to be heard. The memo is kept within the case management system under the case. It serves as a guide to persons who stand in for the original referendary during the holidays and other times of absence. So the procedure doesn’t stand still during the absence.
What are the effects of this initiative? Please specify.
See above. The pending times of the cases pertaining ordering to treatment in mental health matter were shortened from 1,5 months to less than one month.
What could be the possible future modifications, which might improve the results of this initiative?
???
Does this initiative have the support of the responsible public authorities in your country? If so, please give details.
Yes, the human right aspect is widely recognized.
Do you believe this initiative to be usable in other courts in European states?
Yes
IV. Concrete proposals from your court as regards optimum and foreseeable timeframes
Please, submit your comments or suggestions for a practical implementation, at the court level, of the Framework-Programme: "A new objective for judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe", in particular as regards some (or all) of the following proposals:
ensuring the transparency on timeframes for the users (see Line of Action 3: improving the foreseeability of the timeframes)
Our court sends, after a new case is filed, a notice to the appellant informing him/her of the average pending time of the cases in question. A notice of filing the appeal and the information of the average pending time is send to the opposite party, too. The notices also contain information of the judge/referendary who is in charge of preparing the case and his/her telephone number and the court’s e-mail address.
reducing queuing times (see Line of Action 4: defining and monitoring standards for an optimum timeframe for each type of case)
See above.
It is possible from our case management system produce lists of those cases, which have been sent to an administrative authority or a judicial expert for a statement and which have not been returned to the court within the set timeframe. These lists are produced monthly and letters to expedite matters are sent.
When written answers or further clarifications are required from private parties there is always a notice that the case can be decided without the required information or that the case can be dismissed if the answer is not received within the set timeframe.
ensuring a systematic reasoning of court decisions and ensuring a prompt delivery of decisions to the parties (see Line of Action 9: acting on quality of proceedings)
According to the court’s own book of rules the decision is to be sent to the parties within too weeks of deciding the case.
selecting cases according to their complexity (see Line of Action 10: defining priorities in case management)
The sections of the court are specialised and the sphere of assignment of each referendary is defined. The most complex cases are given to the most experienced referendaries or younger judges.
organising trials to reduce waiting time, while paying special attention to victims and witnesses (see Line of Action 11)
According the law the themes of the witnesses must be given to the court beforehand. Thus it is possible to estimate the length of the oral hearing and call the witnesses at a certain time.
setting up a procedure to revive a pending case (see Line of Action 12)
The only situation in our court, when a case is pending without a set date for the next step, is when the court is waiting for the decision of another court. In these cases the referendary is in contact with the staff of the other court.
organisation of the transmission of a case from a non competent court to the competent court (see Line of Action 13: making more flexible the rules on territorial jurisdiction of first instance courts)
The Administrative Procedure Act orders the non competent court to transmit the case to the competent court and to inform the appellant of the transmission. All the cases are dealt out to referendaries or judges right after filing. It is the duty of the referendary to check out whether the court is competent in the case or not.
setting up "contracts of objective" between courts and lawyers (see Line of Action 16: organising the relationships with lawyers)
???
enhancing the responsibility of judicial experts as regards judicial timeframes (see Line of Action 17: improving the monitoring of compliance with the time-limits by judicial experts)
See above; the lists of cases not returned in set timeframe. The referendaries are advised to be active and contact judicial experts in events of delay.
involving judicial professions in the efforts towards optimum and foreseeable timeframes (Line of Action 18: defining the modalities for having bailiffs, clerks / Rechtspfleger, notaries and all other professions involved in justice)
The referendaries are committed and are acting under official duty.
Please, feel free to comment on any other proposals included in the Framework-Programme.
(a) Tribunal de Grande Instance d'Angoulême
(b) Tribunal de Grande Instance de Lyon
(awaiting questionnaire from Courts)
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
Network of Pilot-courts
Submitted by: Bundesministerium der Justiz
(name)
Eberhard descH
pROPOSED court (Name): Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart
address: olgastrasse 2
d 70182 stuttgart (Germany)
Contact person: viCepresident herbert mayer
tel: +49 711 212 3104
E-mail: [email protected]
DESCRIPTION OF YOUR COURT
Please specify if your court is
a court of first instance or a higher instance court:
Court of Appeal (Berufungsgericht und Revisionsgericht)
a court of general jurisdiction or a specialised court (please specify):
Regional court of appeal (Oberlandesgericht) in civil actions (Zivilprozessen),
family lawsuits (Familienrechtsstreitigkeiten) and criminal proceedings (Strafverfahren)
from 8 district courts (Landgerichte) and 56 lower district courts (Amtsgerichte)
Please describe the structure of your court, in particular the number of specialised chambers:
civil divisional court (Zivilsenate): 16
family divisional court (Familiensenate): 05
criminal divisional court (Strafsenate): 05
What is the average volume and the nature (civil, commercial, administrative, criminal, etc.) of the cases addressed each year in your court?
civil actions: 4,200
family lawsuits: 3,200
criminal proceedings: 2,400
Please describe the composition of the court judicial and non judicial staff
Number of judges: 98
If appropriate, number of prosecutors attached to the court: ---
Number of non judge administrative staff: ca. 200
If possible, could you categorise between:
§ non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges (case file preparation, assistance during the hearing, keeping the minutes of the meetings, helping to prepare the decisions) such as registrars: 0
§ staff in charge of different administrative tasks as well as of the management of the courts (human resources management, material and equipment management, financial management, etc): ca. 70
§ technical staff and staff in charge of maintenance functions: ca. 20
Annual budget of the court (in €): ____________________________________
Does this amount include salaries? YES – NO
If yes, does it include salaries for the whole staff or for the non judicial staff only?
The Regional Court of Appeal does not dispose of an overall budget covering its
overhead, i.e. staff, property maintenance, postage, telephone, stationary etc.
The larger items of staff costs and property maintenance are part of the federal state of Baden-Württemberg's budget.
GERMANY: PART II - QUESTIONNAIRE
I. The situation of the judicial timeframes in your court
If appropriate, please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases in civil and administrative matter.
|
2004 |
Civil cases |
Administrative cases |
Divorce |
Employment dismissal |
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
2,793 Berufungen 1,427 Beschwerden |
--- |
1,672 Berufungen 1,521 Beschwerden |
--- |
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
2,826 Berufungen 1,509 Beschwerden |
--- |
1,848 Berufungen 1,564 Beschwerden |
--- |
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
925 Berufungen 159 Beschwerden |
--- |
536 Berufungen 152 Beschwerden |
--- |
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
8 Berufungen 0 Beschwerden |
--- |
0 Berufungen 0 Beschwerden |
--- |
|
Average length of proceedings (from date of filing the case to the court*) |
4.5 months |
--- |
4.4 months |
--- |
* If you cannot calculate the average length from the date of filing the case to the court, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
If appropriate, criminal cases in courts – please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases and specify definitions of incoming cases, starting and ending point of timeframes and pending cases:
|
2004 |
Criminal cases Revisionen und Rechtsbeschwerden |
Robbery cases |
Intentional homicide |
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
607 |
not specified |
not specified |
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
630 |
||
|
Annual number of convicted persons |
- |
||
|
Annual number of acquitted persons |
- |
||
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
40 |
||
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
0 |
||
|
Average length of proceedings (from the date of official charging*) |
1.0 months |
* If it is not possible to calculate the average length from the date of official charging, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
Do you have a way of analysing queuing time (time in which nothing happens with the case) during court procedures? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
There is a system of inspections („Nachschau“), which means that the upper court visits periodically the lower courts to control (first of all) all cases pending longer than a certain period. The members of the delegation of the upper court are judges. They are analyzing the files of the queuing cases as to whether pending time is appropriate to the special subject and proceeding of the case or not. Lower court can be asked to report on the progress of problematic cases periodically.
In criminal cases there is a system of detention control (“Haftprüfungen”). That means that pre trial imprisonment (“Untersuchungshaft”) can last longer than 6 months only, if the court which has ordered it, asks the upper court to confirm; confirmation can only be done, if the upper court is convinced of the suspicion as well and is able to confirm, that the procedure (police, public prosecutor and court) has been done in due acceleration and without queuing time. The confirmation of the upper court has to be repeated each third month.
Do you have an internal procedure for evaluating and monitoring lengths of proceedings? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
There is a system of registration (“Zählkarten”). For each case there are registered a lot of details, for example starting and ending point. Each month administration of court is supplied with detailed evaluation, such as number of incoming cases, number of finished cases, average pending time, number of cases lasting longer than 6, 9, 12 months and so on.
Administration of upper court knows the evaluation of all lower courts. For example, the Oberlandesgericht knows the evaluation of the 8 Landgerichte and 56 Amtsgerichte within its district. It gives notice to each Landgericht not only the evaluation of its own, but as well of the other Landgerichte of the district. By this way there is a open possibility to compare (benchmark).
Do you have indicators of performance and targets as regards timeframes of procedures? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
See answer to question 4. There is a kind of constantly benchmarking between the courts of the same level in a lot of details, most of all as regards timeframe of procedure.
II. The relations between your court and the users of justice
Does your court have users’ or legal professionals’ surveys to measure public trust and satisfaction with the services delivered by the court? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
There are regular meetings with the representatives of the lawyers of the district, discussing as well their trust and satisfaction with the services delivered by the court.
Not professional users satisfaction has not yet been measured (at the OLG each case must be represented by a lawyer).
III. Specific initiatives carried on within your court as regards timeframes of procedure[13]
Does your court have practical experience in monitoring or reducing judicial timeframes? Has it in particular developed one or several specific initiatives in this field? Please specify.
See answer to 3., 4. and 5.
What are the effects of this initiative? Please specify.
Courts in the district of the OLG Stuttgart have the shortest queuing time in Germany. We believe that a good reason for that is the said system of benchmarking.
What could be the possible future modifications which might improve the results of this initiative?
There are efforts to intensify the benchmarking by projects called “Vergleichsringe” or “Balanced score card”. This would be first of all a way to better analyzing reasons for over average timeframes.
Does this initiative have the support of the responsible public authorities in your country? If so, please give details.
The projects above-mentioned (Nr. 9) are encouraged by the Ministry of Justice of Baden-Württemberg, but courts are free to share or not.
Do you believe this initiative to be usable in other courts in European states?
There is not yet enough experience with those new projects, whereas the long experienced types of benchmarking might well be of use.
IV. Concrete proposals from your court as regards optimum and foreseeable timeframes
Please, submit your comments or suggestions for a practical implementation, at the court level, of the Framework-Programme: "A new objective for judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe", in particular as regards some (or all) of the following proposals:
ensuring the transparency on timeframes for the users (see Line of Action 3: improving the foreseeability of the timeframes)
The foreseeability of timeframe is of high importance. We believe this can be achieved by a system of inspections and benchmarking, but most of all by the tradition of concentrating all efforts to achieve ending point of the case in the first hearing (at least in civil cases and divorce).
We don’t believe that a timeframe given by law would be helpful.
reducing queuing times (see Line of Action 4: defining and monitoring standards for an optimum timeframe for each type of case)
The optimal timeframe can be found by the timeframe, the leading court of the comparison achieves. Benchmarking means to learn from the best.
ensuring a systematic reasoning of court decisions and ensuring a prompt delivery of decisions to the parties (see Line of Action 9: acting on quality of proceedings)
Both are as well of high importance. The prompt delivery is depending from an appropriate inner organization of court. The systematic reasoning of decisions seems to be a question of education and selection of judges.
selecting cases according to their complexity (see Line of Action 10: defining priorities in case management)
Priorities of case management depending of complexity may be dangerous. In general it is better to manage according to starting date, except for very urgent cases which need immediate response.
organising trials to reduce waiting time, while paying special attention to victims and witnesses (see Line of Action 11)
setting up a procedure to revive a pending case (see Line of Action 12)
See answer to Nr. I.3.
organisation of the transmission of a case from a non competent court to the competent court (see Line of Action 13: making more flexible the rules on territorial jurisdiction of first instance courts)
This is not possible in our law system, because it would contradict the principle of legal judge (“gesetzlicher Richter”).
setting up "contracts of objective" between courts and lawyers (see Line of Action 16: organising the relationships with lawyers)
We don’t see need for contracts concerning timeframe, cause lawyers (at our court) rather want more time for filing their statements than shorter procedure.
enhancing the responsibility of judicial experts as regards judicial timeframes (see Line of Action 17: improving the monitoring of compliance with the time-limits by judicial experts)
This is in most of the long lasting cases the central problem. Until now we don’t have proper solutions (except not to take the same expert again, if we had bad experience with him).
involving judicial professions in the efforts towards optimum and foreseeable timeframes (Line of Action 18: defining the modalities for having bailiffs, clerks / Rechtspfleger, notaries and all other professions involved in justice)
Commission EUROPENNE POUR L'EFFICACITE DE LA JUStice
(CEPEJ)
Réseau des tribunaux-référents
PROPOSE PAR: ministere de justice hellEnique
(nom)
TRIBUNAL PROPOSE (NOm): (a) Cour d’Appel de Salonique
adressE: 26 Oktorriou 3
personNE DE CONTACT: Antonius Tsalaportas _________
tel: 231 0507 321, 231 0513 132
E-mail: [email protected]
***
DESCRIPTION DE VOTRE TRIBUNAL
Veuillez indiquer si votre tribunal est
un tribunal de première instance ou d'une instance supérieure:
Cour d’Appel
un tribunal de droit commun ou spécialisé (veuillez préciser):
De Droit Commun
Veuillez décrire la structure de votre tribunal, notamment le nombre de chambres et leur spécialisation:
Il y a 4 chambres civiles: 1ere chambre de droit des obligations, 2eme chambre de droit reel, 3 eme chambre de droit famille et 4eme chambre des procedures specialisees: a) droit des loyers, b) droit des accidents par vehicules, c) le conseil des pud homme. Tous les juges s’occupent aux affaires criminelles.
Quels sont le volume moyen et la nature (civile, commerciale, administrative, pénale, etc.) des affaires traitées chaque année dans votre tribunal?
3500 affaires civiles et commerciales
6511 affaires penales
Veuillez décrire la composition du personnel judiciaire et non judiciaire du tribunal
Nombre de juges: 66
Le cas échéant, nombre de procureurs près votre tribunal: __________
Nombre de personnel administratif non juge: 86
Si possible, veuillez distinguer entre:
§ le personnel non juge dont la tâche est d'assister le juge (préparation des dossiers, assistance pendant les audiences, rédaction des minutes des réunions, assistance dans la préparation de la décision), tels que les greffiers: 60
§ le personnel en charge des différentes tâches administratives et de gestion du tribunal (ressources humaines, gestion du matériel et des équipements, gestion financière, etc): 7
§ le personnel technique et de maintenance: 19
(Scanned document )
ETAT MEMBRE: GRECE
PROPOSE PAR: ministere de justice hellEnique
TRIBUNAL PROPOSE: (b) Tribunal de Premiere Instance d’Athenes
ADRESSE: Rue Evelpidon 71. Athènes.
PERSONNE DE CONTACT: M..Stephanos Pantazpoulos, President du
Tribunal de Grande Instance d' Athènes-Lecteur
de la Faculté de Droit de l' Université d'Athènes.
TEL Fax : 210-8253969.
E-mail: [email protected]
DESCRlPTION DE VOTRE TRIBUNAL
1. a. Par principe, Tribunal de premiere instance. Mais aussi Tribunal de
Deuxième degré de juridiction, puisqu'il juge les appels contre les décisions du
juge de paix, quant aux affaires civiles, et les appels (Cour Correctionnelle) contre
les décisions du tribunal correctionnelle cornpose du juge unique.
b. Tribunal de droit commun.
c. Les affaires civiles sont juges par des chambres civiles composées de
trois juges ou du juge unique. Ca depend de la nature des affaires et dc la
compétence rationae materiae. Donc, on a lO chambres des affaires de droît reel,
16 chambres des affaires dc droit des obligations, 12 chambres de droit
commercial~ 6 chambres des appels contre les décisions du juge de paix et 2
chambres de la matière gracieuse. Les affaires du bail sont jugée par 31 juges,
les affaires provenantes d'un accident automobilier par 50 juges, les affaires de
droit de travail par 22 juges, les affaires d’expropriation par 10 juges, 2 jugcs s'
occupent dc l' ordonnance dc paicment et il y a aussi 3 commissaires de faillitc et
40 juges d'instruction (pour les délits graves et crimcs).
Quant aux affaires pénales, c' est la Cour d'assises composés de trois juges et
quatres laiqucs, 13 chambrcs de délits composées de trois juges, 8 tribunaux de
délits composés du juge unique, 1 tribunal pour les délits des mineurs. Enfin on a
7 chambres de conseil des ordonnances d’instruction.
2. Affaires cîvilcs ct commcrciales introduites à juger: En 2002 = 178.800, 2003=171.900, 2004:170.900, Fcvrier/2005 30.470. Affaires civilcs et commerciales jugées: En 2002= 64.189, 2003= 64237, 2004=58376, Février/2005=10695. Demandes introduites de divorce par consentement mutuel: En 2002=4738, en 2003=4801, 2004=5017, Fevriere 2005= 805. Demandes jugees de divorce par consentement mutuel, en 2002=1386, en 2003=3917, en 2004 = 3483, Fevrier 2005=672
Affaires pénales jugées en 2004 = 241.941 de toutes des juridictions rapportées.
3. a- Nombre de juges : 341 y compris 18jugcs stagiaires.
b. Nombre de procurers : 126.
c. Nombre de personnel administratif: 614
1. Personnel pour l'assistance du juge : 399
2. Personncl des tâches administratives : 215
3. Personnel techniquc: -
4. Le tribunal n'a pas du budjet annuel. C’est le Ministère de la Justice quï fait le budjet et il paie les salaircs de tout le personnel (juge et non juge).
Questionnaire
I. Situation des délais judiciaires dans votre tribunal
1-2. Voycz les réponses ci-dessus no 2. On ne peut calculer ni le nombrc d’
affaires en attente (non jugées dans l' anncc») ni le nombre d'affaires en attente depuis plus de 3 ans. La durée moycnnc du rendement de justice au premier degré de juridiction depend de la procédure suivie à juger. Ainsi, pour les affaires jugées d'une procedure speciale (p.ex bail, affaires du travail ctc.), on compte presque une et demie annee, exception faite de l'ajournemcnt dcs débats. Pour les affaires jugées d’une procédure ordinairc (p.cx. droit des obligations, droit commercial)* on compte une période presque des 2 et demie à 3 ans à partir de l'introduction de la demande, exception faite de l'ajournement des débats. La période moyenne à juger les affaires pénales est presque 2 et demie à 3 ans, sans calculer la période de l' ajournement des débats.
3. Non.
4. Non.
5. Non.
Il. Relations entre votre tribunal et les usagers de ]a justicc.
6. Non.
III. Initiatives specifiques développées par votre tribunal concernant les
delais des procedures.
7-9. Non. C'est plutôt des initiatives étatiques. P. ex. dans une nouvelle lois à voter par le Parlement, la durée entre l'introduction de l'affaire aux tribunaux et la discussion de celle-ci se calcule de 6 à 12 mois.
IV. Propositions concrètes de la part de votre tribunal concernant les délais optimaux et prévisibles
On choisit le d, e, b, j. Mais la meilleure solution serait la diminuation du chiffre des démandes introduites aux tribunaux, ce qui depend de la mentalité juridique du people.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
Network of Pilot-courts
Submitted by: Dr Janos mezodi
(name)
pROPOSED court (Name): Municipal Court of Veszprem
address: ______________________________
Contact person: Dr Anita Gropler
tel: ______________________________
E-mail: [email protected]
***
DESCRIPTION OF YOUR COURT
Please specify if your court is
a court of first instance or a higher instance court:
Our court is a court of first instance concerning criminal and civil cases. The court of second instance is the County Court. In petty offences our court is the second instance if the case started with the police.
a court of general jurisdiction or a specialised court (please specify):
Our court is a specialised court
Please describe the structure of your court, in particular the number of specialised chambers:
Number of Criminal Chambers: 16
Number of Civil Chambers: 15
On the whole: 31
What is the average volume and the nature (civil, commercial, administrative, criminal, etc.) of the cases addressed each year in your court?
- 13,933 pieces
- no. of civil cases arrived in the year 2004: 8874
- no. of criminal cases arrived in the year 2004: 2917
- no. of petty offences arrived in the year 2004: 2142
On the whole: 13,933
Please describe the composition of the court judicial and non judicial staff
Number of judges: 31
If appropriate, number of prosecutors attached to the court: 10
Number of non judge administrative staff:
Trainee (judicial): 11
Secretary (judicial): 11
Administrative Staff: 75
If possible, could you categorise between:
§ non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges (case file preparation, assistance during the hearing, keeping the minutes of the meetings, helping to prepare the decisions) such as registrars: __________
§ staff in charge of different administrative tasks as well as of the management of the courts (human resources management, material and equipment management, financial management, etc): __________
§ technical staff and staff in charge of maintenance functions: __________
Annual budget of the court (in €): The court does not have its own budget
x
PART II – Hungary - Questionnaire
1) The situation of the judicial timeframes in our court
1.
|
2004 |
Civil cases |
Administrative cases |
Divorce |
Employment dismissal |
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
2508 |
10 |
585 |
- |
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
2630 |
8 |
602 |
- |
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
857 |
3 |
207 |
- |
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
8 |
1 |
2 |
- |
|
Average length of proceedings (from date of filing the case to the court) |
5,74 month |
4,6 month |
5,2 month |
- |
2.
|
2004 |
Criminal cases |
Robbery cases |
Intentional homicide |
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
1805 |
15 |
- |
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
2118 |
8 |
- |
|
Annual number of convicted persons |
- |
- |
- |
|
Annual number of acquitted persons |
- |
- |
- |
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
884 |
2 |
- |
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
74 |
- |
- |
|
Average length of proceedings (from the date of official charging) |
12,73 month |
- |
- |
The building up of a new, computer program of the judicial system is in progress. The new program will be presumably more up-to-date. We comlpeted the two tables, as the year to be examined was not fixed, whe gave information on the year 2004. We didn’t fill out some columns, for lack of information. We have to comment the tables as follows:
Table 1.:
Cases in civil matter include above that extra-judicial procedures. The number of the incoming cases in extra-judicial procedures was in the year 2004: 3540, the number of the judicial decisions: 3475. The number of pending cases was 278, none of them was a pending case of more than 3 years. The average length of these procedures was 1,6 month.
Cases of labour (employment dismissal) fall not under the competence of the court.
Table 2.:
We only entered crimininal matters under dispute in Table 2. It is to be noted that the whole number of criminal cases amounts to 2354, because apart from litigious matters there are other criminal cases as well. By the number of judicial decisions (2118) we gave information on litigious matters, although the whole number of decisions amounts to 2637. The number of pending cases (884) concerns the litigious matters, while the number of all criminal cases is 930. The length of proceedings (12.73) is defined in relation to litigious matters, other cases are settled nearly immediately.
Intentional homicide falls not under the competence of the court.
Judges in criminal matters settle petty offences as well. The annual number of incoming cases concerning petty offences was in the year 2004: 2142, and the court passed 2187 decisions. The number of pending petty offences was 317 in the year 2004. The average length of these proceedings is 3,7 month.
Further on I can answer the other questions of the questonnaire as follows:
3. Yes. The computer registration is even today able to detect if a case is longer than 30 days by the judge, namely when nothing happens with the case.
4. Yes. A statement is made every month, which shows how long is a case pending. If we compare the statements, we can find out whether the number of old cases decreased or increased. The President examines the statements every month. See point 8. as well.
5. Yes. The national proportional number appears regularly in the Official Gazette of Courts, and it shows how many cases were settled each month by a judge in a given matter. It is a base of comparison which we have to reach or keep.
6. Our court hasn’t had a survey like this yet.
7. We check monthly the settling of pending cases of 2-5 years, in the cours of that the judge reports why he didn’t finish a pending case of more than 2 years. The statement is regularly forwared to the County Court.
8. In consequence of the independence of a judge by making a decision, we regard this investigation as a formality, and it exercises no influence on the settling of cases. The judge holds the statement as a nastiness of the leading, and can always explain why he didn’t settled a case.
Criminal cases are in this respect particular, because the judge scarcely has efficient means to enforce the appearance of the accused, it is exeptional that a case can be settled for lack of these, but if yes, a new trial can be moved for, this means that the procedure starts from the beginning.
9. I have no idea so far.
10. The responsible public authorities didn’t protest against this initiatives, the fast settling of the cases is question of the day, but the sweeping and revolutionary reform of the law of procedure just failed to come about. Instead of that the law of procedure is regularly modified. This establishment concerns first of all the criminial legislation.
11.I don’t know the answer.
12. Like I mentioned in point 10. a new, really modern law of procedure should be prepared. In civil matter is the proving ex officio even now stressed, and the duty to instruction as well, even if the party has a counsel. Breaking these rules causes the declaration of invalidity, so the procedure is to be repeated from the start. The system of judicial experts is behind the times, and for lack of resources not able to function suitably, the experts engage themselves to prepare the opinions at 4-5-6 months. In criminal cases contrary to all rumours, the judge proves ex officio. It is his duty to clear up the facts of the case (designate experts to prepare opinions, questionning of those witnesses who haven’t been questionned till that), the judge can only within a narrow compass return the case to the investigating authorities. The enforcement of the appearance of the accused with the assistence of the police is difficult and many times unsuccessful. Against a decision made in the absence of the accused a new trial can be moved for, a motion for new trial can’t even be thrown out by the court, so the dragging out of the procedure is encoded in this legal institution.
Network of Pilot-courts
Court Name: The district court of Reykjavik
QUESTIONNAIRE
I. The situation of the judicial timeframes in your court
· If appropriate, please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases in civil and administrative matter.
|
Civil cases |
Administrative cases |
Divorce |
Employment dismissal |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
14000 |
30 |
10 |
110 |
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
14000 |
30 |
10 |
110 |
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
500 |
3 |
1 |
11 |
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Average length of proceedings (from date of filing the case to the court*) |
8 months |
6 months |
3 months |
5 months |
* If you cannot calculate the average length from the date of filing the case to the court, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
· If appropriate, criminal cases in courts – please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases and specify definitions of incoming cases, starting and ending point of timeframes and pending cases:
|
Criminal cases |
Robbery cases |
Intentional homicide |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
4000 |
20 |
4 |
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
4000 |
20 |
4 |
|
Annual number of convicted persons |
3950 |
20 |
4 |
|
Annual number of acquitted persons |
50 |
0 |
0 |
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
200 |
2 |
0 |
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Average length of proceedings (from the date of official charging*) |
2 months |
3 months |
3 months |
* If it is not possible to calculate the average length from the date of official charging, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
· Do you have a way of analysing queuing time (time in which nothing happens with the case) during court procedures? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
At least twice a year there is run a check where the judges are asked to provide information about the queuing time of the cases they are handling each time.
· Do you have an internal procedure for evaluating and monitoring lengths of proceedings? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
No.
· Do you have indicators of performance and targets as regards timeframes of procedures? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
The target to reach in civil cases (where hearings take place) is 6 months from the time a case is filed. In civil cases where the defendant does not show up the target is two months from the time a case is filed. In criminal cases it is hard to do better than now (average case time is 2 months in criminal cases).
II. The relations between your court and the users of justice
· Does your court have users’ or legal professionals’ surveys to measure public trust and satisfaction with the services delivered by the court? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
No.
III. Specific initiatives carried on within your court as regards timeframes of procedure[14]
· Does your court have practical experience in monitoring or reducing judicial timeframes? Has it in particular developed one or several specific initiatives in this field? Please specify.
No. In Iceland we have only two instances, i.e. the district courts (8) and the Supreme Court. The average lenght of a civil case on both instances is one and a half year althogeter and in criminal case 8 months altogeter. In my opininion it is hard to do better. The courts are working hard on making the efficiency of the system as good as possible. In order to reach that goal it is important to have an efficient legal system (proceeding system), highly qualified and enthusiastic judges and non-legal staff and appropriate number of staff (both judges, assistant judges and non-legal staff) to meet the case load. In Iceland we think we have succeeded pretty well in minimizing the timeframes but our problem in recent years is that an increasing number of cases (both civil cases and criminal cases) is getting bigger and bigger and more complexed.
· What are the effects of this initiative? Please specify.
· What could be the possible future modifications which might improve the results of this initiative?
· Does this initiative have the support of the responsible public authorities in your country? If so, please give details.
· Do you believe this initiative to be usable in other courts in European states?
IV. Concrete proposals from your court as regards optimum and foreseeable timeframes
· Please, submit your comments or suggestions for a practical implementation, at the court level, of the Framework-Programme: "A new objective for judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe", in particular as regards some (or all) of the following proposals:
1) ensuring the transparency on timeframes for the users (see Line of Action 3: improving the foreseeability of the timeframes)
2) reducing queuing times (see Line of Action 4: defining and monitoring standards for an optimum timeframe for each type of case)
3) ensuring a systematic reasoning of court decisions and ensuring a prompt delivery of decisions to the parties (see Line of Action 9: acting on quality of proceedings)
4) selecting cases according to their complexity (see Line of Action 10: defining priorities in case management)
5) organising trials to reduce waiting time, while paying special attention to victims and witnesses (see Line of Action 11)
6) setting up a procedure to revive a pending case (see Line of Action 12)
7) organisation of the transmission of a case from a non competent court to the competent court (see Line of Action 13: making more flexible the rules on territorial jurisdiction of first instance courts)
8) setting up "contracts of objective" between courts and lawyers (see Line of Action 16: organising the relationships with lawyers)
9) enhancing the responsibility of judicial experts as regards judicial timeframes (see Line of Action 17: improving the monitoring of compliance with the time-limits by judicial experts)
10) involving judicial professions in the efforts towards optimum and foreseeable timeframes (Line of Action 18: defining the modalities for having bailiffs, clerks / Rechtspfleger, notaries and all other professions involved in justice)
· Please, feel free to comment on any other proposals included in the Framework-Programme.
Network of Pilot-courts
Submitted by: _CIARAN KELLY (pRINCIPAL REGISTRAR)
pROPOSED court (Name): Commercial Court
address: ____FOUR COURTS________________
____DUBLIN_7_______________
Contact person: _____KEVIN O’NEILL___________
tel: _____00 353 1 8886576________
E-mail: ______[email protected] ______
***
DESCRIPTION OF YOUR COURT
1. Please specify if your court is
a. a court of first instance or a higher instance court:
Court of First Instance
(a Division of the Irish High Court)
b. a court of general jurisdiction or a specialised court (please specify):
i. ___Specialised Court________________________________________
c. Please describe the structure of your court, in particular the number of specialised chambers:
The Commercial Court is a specialised division of the High Court whereby a party
to a case may apply to have the case heard in the Commercial List of the High Court.
The Court deals primarily with cases where the claim is in excess of €1,000,000
although it can hear any case of a commercial nature. There are two High Court Judges
with extensive commercial experience assigned to hear cases in the List.
2. What is the average volume and the nature (civil, commercial, administrative, criminal, etc.) of the cases addressed each year in your court?
2004 was the first full year of the Commercial Court.
43 cases were admitted to the Court List and all were commercial in nature
Of these, 27 were disposed of in that year with a carry over into 2005 of 16. Of the 16
cases, a further 6 have now been dealt with and of the remainder only 2 are over six
months in existence.
3. Please describe the composition of the court judicial and non judicial staff
a. Number of judges: ____2____
b. If appropriate, number of prosecutors attached to the court: ____0_____
c. Number of non judge administrative staff: ____2_____
If possible, could you categorise between:
1) non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges (case file preparation, assistance during the hearing, keeping the minutes of the meetings, helping to prepare the decisions) such as registrars: ____2__
2) staff in charge of different administrative tasks as well as of the management of the courts (human resources management, material and equipment management, financial management, etc): ____0____
3) technical staff and staff in charge of maintenance functions: _Supported by technical units of the Courts Service
4. Annual budget of the court (in €): _There is no separate budget. It is funded from the
overall administrative budget of the Courts Service
Does this amount include salaries? YES – NO
If yes, does it include salaries for the whole staff or for the non judicial staff only?
PART II : IRELAND
I. The situation of the judicial timeframes in your court
If appropriate, please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases in civil and administrative matter.
|
Civil cases |
Administrative cases |
Divorce |
Employment dismissal |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
46 |
|||
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
10 |
|||
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
16 |
|||
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
None |
|||
|
Average length of proceedings (from date of filing the case to the court*) |
6 weeks |
And additional 71 cases have been admitted during the period 1st January 2005 to 31st July 2005 of which 36 concluded during the period. The waiting time is, on average, 7 weeks.
* If you cannot calculate the average length from the date of filing the case to the court, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
If appropriate, criminal cases in courts – please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases and specify definitions of incoming cases, starting and ending point of timeframes and pending cases:
The Court does not hear Criminal Cases.
|
Criminal cases |
Robbery cases |
Intentional homicide |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
|||
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
|||
|
Annual number of convicted persons |
|||
|
Annual number of acquitted persons |
|||
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
|||
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
|||
|
Average length of proceedings (from the date of official charging*) |
* If it is not possible to calculate the average length from the date of official charging, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
Do you have a way of analysing queuing time (time in which nothing happens with the case) during court procedures? YES
If yes, please specify:
Queuing does not arise as cases are listed and directions given on an ongoing basis .
Between each listing of a case the parties are complying with the most recent directions
given by the Court. The only situation which arises whereby “nothing happens” is when
an appeal is lodged with the Supreme Court on an issue.
Do you have an internal procedure for evaluating and monitoring lengths of proceedings? YES
If yes, please specify:
All aspects of cases in the Commercial Court are monitored and time periods calculated
in respect of various stages within each case on an ongoing basis. The Court produces
statistics regularly with a view to monitoring time periods. __
Do you have indicators of performance and targets as regards timeframes of procedures? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
Cases differ by virtue of their complexity and the legal issues arising. There are and can
be no predefined targets or performance indicators other than to ensure that all
cases are disposed of with the utmost efficiency.
II. The relations between your court and the users of justice
Does your court have users’ or legal professionals’ surveys to measure public trust and satisfaction with the services delivered by the court? YES
If yes, please specify:
The Commercial Court has a users’ group which is made up of a Judge, two Registrars,
Two barristers and one solicitor and which meets for exactly this purpose. It is
proposed that representatives from the commercial sector will be asked to contribute
to and join the group in the near future. No survey of users has taken place but articles
from users published in periodicals have always been favourable.
III. Specific initiatives carried on within your court as regards timeframes of procedure[15]
Does your court have practical experience in monitoring or reducing judicial timeframes? Has it in particular developed one or several specific initiatives in this field? Please specify.
A key feature of the Commercial Court is the assignment of a Judge specialising in Commercial matters and a system of intensive case management with a view to reducing time frames. Initiatives to ensure this have been encompassed in the Court’s Rules. An example is the imposition of costs penalties on parties who fail to comply deadlines set by the Court.
In addition, issues which delay litigation in Ireland have been overcome through the employ of initiatives such as the use of evidence by way of videolink, the identification and narrowing of the issues between the parties, the use of witness statements and the guarantee of early hearings. The Court may also summon the parties to an action to appear to report on progress in a case or refer the matter for mediation.
What are the effects of this initiative? Please specify.
The combined effects of these initiatives have been to reduce waiting times by many months, or even years in some instances, for commercial cases and the consequential reduction in costs incurred. Many cases are settled prior to trial as a result of the Court’s intervention in, for example, identifying the key issues. In particular, the case management system has resulted in most cases being ready foe trial in a matter of weeks.
What could be the possible future modifications which might improve the results of this initiative?
Delays may be encountered in appeals to the Supreme Court on interim Orders made by the Commercial Court. The drafting of Court Rules to ensure a speedy appeals procedure would improve time periods.
Does this initiative have the support of the responsible public authorities in your country? If so, please give details.
Yes. The Commercial Court was introduced further to a report by a working group highlighting the need for a Court specialising in commercial matters mandated by the Irish Department of Justice. A purpose built full technology Courtroom has been provided and funded by the Irish exchequer. In addition the Irish Courts Service and the Judiciary have provided sufficient resources to ensure the quality of service remains high..
Do you believe this initiative to be usable in other courts in European states?
The Court has been highly successful in this jurisdiction and there is no reason to
believe that the same success cannot be achieved elsewhere. Further to the success of
the Commercial Court, this model has been has already adopted in Ireland for matters
relating to Competition Law. In addition, commercial bodies have called for this to be
extended to other Courts in Ireland. The Commercial Court has simply adopted a
“hands-on” approach to case management rather than leaving the parties to progress
cases to the point of being ready for trial without intervention.
IV. Concrete proposals from your court as regards optimum and foreseeable timeframes
Please, submit your comments or suggestions for a practical implementation, at the court level, of the Framework-Programme: "A new objective for judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe", in particular as regards some (or all) of the following proposals:
ensuring the transparency on timeframes for the users (see Line of Action 3: improving the foreseeability of the timeframes)
Users of the Court are aware that the timeframes involved. Statistics relating to case disposal are published by the Court on request by any user and appear in the Annual Report of the Courts Service. This has enabled parties to commence cases with the certainty that they will be actively managed to the point of conclusion.
reducing queuing times (see Line of Action 4: defining and monitoring standards for an optimum timeframe for each type of case)
There are no queuing times in the Commercial Court. In addition a period of inactivity does not arise as between each listing of a case the parties are given directions by the Court with a view to advancing the case.
ensuring a systematic reasoning of court decisions and ensuring a prompt delivery of decisions to the parties (see Line of Action 9: acting on quality of proceedings)
Interim measures to deal with delay have been employed by the Court such as the striking out of cases and the imposition of cost penalties for non-compliance with the Court’s directions. Irish legislation introduced in 2004 provides for the monitoring of decisions reserved by the Court after a period of two months. All Commercial Court decisions have been delivered with this time period.
selecting cases according to their complexity (see Line of Action 10: defining priorities in case management)
By their very nature, most commercial cases are complex to some extent and all are dealt with on a strict case management basis. In situations where cases are ready for at the same time, it has not been necessary so far to prioritise one case over another. The resources available to the Court ensure that adequate judicial resources with commercial experience are always available.
organising trials to reduce waiting time, while paying special attention to victims and witnesses (see Line of Action 11)
The use of videolink to allow witnesses to give evidence from outside the jurisdiction together with the provision for the acceptance of witness statements has in some cases obviated the necessity for witnesses to attend Court. Where witnesses must attend, the Court has facilitated them by allowing as much notice as possible as well as where possible allocating definite time slots.
setting up a procedure to revive a pending case (see Line of Action 12)
Does not arise
organisation of the transmission of a case from a non competent court to the competent court (see Line of Action 13: making more flexible the rules on territorial jurisdiction of first instance courts)
Does not arise
setting up "contracts of objective" between courts and lawyers (see Line of Action 16: organising the relationships with lawyers)
If necessary this can be dealt with through the Court Users’ Group. Initial
suggestions of a practical nature suggested by members of the group have been
adopted in ease of the practitioners. The external members of the group are
however satisfied that all efforts are made by the Court to achieve the challenging
objective of an early hearing date and the Court has delivered the best possible
service.
enhancing the responsibility of judicial experts as regards judicial timeframes (see Line of Action 17: improving the monitoring of compliance with the time-limits by judicial experts)
The Court and the Rules set timeframes and ensure that these timeframes are complied with. This issue does not arise.
involving judicial professions in the efforts towards optimum and foreseeable timeframes (Line of Action 18: defining the modalities for having bailiffs, clerks / Rechtspfleger, notaries and all other professions involved in justice)
The Court Registrar has been assigned duties in order to speed up the process which had previously required the making of a Court application.
Please, feel free to comment on any other proposals included in the Framework-Programme.
Commission EUROPENNE POUR L'EFFICACITE DE LA JUStice
(CEPEJ)
Réseau des tribunaux-référents
PROPOSE PAR (NOM):
TRIBUNAL PROPOSE (NOm): Tribunale Ordinario Di Torino
adressE: Corso Vittorio Emanuele II° n. 130 –
10146 - TORINO
personNE DE CONTACT: Mario BARBUTO – presidente del Tribunale ordinario di Torino
tel: 039 11 4327531/2/3
E-mail: [email protected]
***
DESCRIPTION DE VOTRE TRIBUNAL
18) Veuillez indiquer si votre tribunal est
a) un tribunal de première instance ou d'une instance supérieure:
Tribunale di primo grado
b) un tribunal de droit commun ou spécialisé (veuillez préciser):
Tribunale di diritto comune.
Tribunale specializzato in materia di proprietà industriale ed intellettuale.
Tribunale dei marchi e dei disegni e modelli comunitari, ai sensi dell’art. 91 Reg. (CE) n. 40/94 e art. 80 reg. (CE) n. 2002/6
c) Veuillez décrire la structure de votre tribunal, notamment le nombre de chambres et leur spécialisation:
Sono presenti 12 sezioni civili, di seguito elencate con l’indicazione delle materie trattate: Vedere Allegato n. 1
Sono presenti 6 sezioni penali dibattimentali, di seguito elencate con l’indicazione delle materie trattate: Vedere Allegato n. 2
Sono presenti, inoltre, le seguenti sezioni penali:
la Sezione GIP/GUP, che tratta tutti i procedimenti che la legge attribuisce al giudice per le indagini preliminari e al giudice dell’udienza preliminare;
la Sezione 2^ Penale (cosiddetto “Tribunale della libertà”) che tratta tutti i procedimenti in tema di riesame e appello.
19) Quels sont le volume moyen et la nature (civile, commerciale, administrative, pénale, etc.) des affaires traitées chaque année dans votre tribunal?
Per l’anno 2004
Civile: cause contenziose pervenute n. 38.972; esaurite n. 38.962
Civile: fallimenti: sopravvenuti n. 468 (1660 istanze esaminate)
Civile: esecuzioni immobiliari sopravvenute: 1.338; esecuzioni mobiliari sopravvenute n. 3.491
Civile: separazioni consensuali sopravvenute n. 2.900; separazioni giudiziali sopravvenute n. 1.285; procedure di divorzio sopravvenute n. 731
Civile: affari del giudice tutelare: 847
Civile: affari di volontaria giurisdizione sopravvenuti n. 3.553 (+ 4042 del giudice tutelare + 52 eredità giacenti);
Penale (dibattimento pubblico): processi sopravvenuti: n. 7.634; esauriti n. 7.538
Penale (Tribunale della libertà): ricorsi sopravvenuti n. 2.904; esauriti n. 2.897
Penale (Giudice indagini preliminari): affari sopravvenuti n. 147.379; esauriti n. 156.110
20) Veuillez décrire la composition du personnel judiciaire et non judiciaire du tribunal
a) Nombre de juges: 162, di cui 11 posti vacanti
b) Le cas échéant, nombre de procureurs près votre tribunal: 60, di cui 2 vacanti
c) Nombre de personnel administratif non juge: 476, di cui 88 vacanti
Si possible, veuillez distinguer entre:
§ le personnel non juge dont la tâche est d'assister le juge (préparation des dossiers, assistance pendant les audiences, rédaction des minutes des réunions, assistance dans la préparation de la décision), tels que les greffiers: 180
§ le personnel en charge des différentes tâches administratives et de gestion du tribunal (ressources humaines, gestion du matériel et des équipements, gestion financière, etc): 370
§ le personnel technique et de maintenance: 18
21) Budget annuel du tribunal (en €):
Anno 2004 € 200.000
Anno 2005 € 194.000
Si precisa che a consuntivo annuale le spese vengono rimborsate da enti locali (esempio: Comune di Torino) che si attiva nei confronti dello Stato.
Ce montant inclut-il les salaires? NO
Si oui, inclut-il les salaires de tout le personnel ou du seul personnel non juge?
____________________________________________________________
Nous vous serions reconnaissants de bien vouloir retourner ce formulaire, par le biais du membre national de la CEPEJ, avant le 1 mai 2005, au Secrétariat de la CEPEJ:
DG I – Affaires Juridique, Conseil de l'Europe, F – 67075 Strasbourg
e-mail: [email protected] ou fax: + 33 3 88 41 37 43.
Le Secrétariat prendra ensuite contact en temps utile avec vous au sujet du questionnaire ci-joint.
Commission EUROPENNE POUR L'EFFICACITE DE LA JUStice
(CEPEJ)
Réseau de tribunaux-référents
QUESTIONNAIRE
I. Situation des délais judiciaires dans votre tribunal
39. Le cas échéant, veuillez compléter ce tableau relatif au nombre d'affaires, à la durée des procédures et au stock d'affaires civiles et administratives:
|
Anno 2004 |
Affaires civiles |
Affaires administratives (intendendo : Volontaria giurisdizione) |
Divorces (rectius : cause di diritto di famiglia) |
Licenciements (rectius : cause di lavoro) |
|
Nombre annuel d'affaires entrant |
22844 |
2221 |
3086 |
13042 |
|
Nombre annuel de décisions judiciaires |
23274 |
Non disponibile |
2764 |
12924 |
|
Nombre d'affaires en attente (non jugées dans l'année) |
20143 |
« |
2810 |
5809 |
|
Nombre d'affaires en attente depuis plus de 3 ans |
679 |
« |
155 |
7 |
|
Durée moyenne des procédures (depuis la date d'introduction de la requête auprès du tribunal *) |
322 giorni |
“ |
330 giorni |
161 giorni |
* Si vous n'êtes pas en mesure de calculer la durée moyenne à partir de la date d'introduction de la requête, comment calculez-vous les délais de procédure?
40. Le cas échéant, veuillez compléter ce tableau relatif au nombre d'affaires, à la durée des procédures et au stock d'affaires pénales:
|
Affaires pénales |
Affaires pour vols |
Affaires pour homicide volontaire |
|
|
Nombre annuel d'affaires entrant |
7634 |
Non disponibile |
Non disponibile |
|
Nombre annuel de décisions judiciaires |
7538 |
Non disponibile |
Non disponibile |
|
Nombre annuel de personnes condamnées |
Non disponibile |
Non disponibile |
Non disponibile |
|
Nombre annuel de personnes acquittées |
Non disponibile |
Non disponibile |
Non disponibile |
|
Nombre d'affaires en attente (non jugées dans l'année) |
Non disponibile |
Non disponibile |
Non disponibile |
|
Nombre d'affaires en attente depuis plus de 3 ans |
Anno 2002 (ultimo dato disponibile) 66 (rilevazione non più ripetuta) |
Non disponibile |
Non disponibile |
|
Durée moyenne des procédures (depuis la date officielle d'incrimination) dal rinvio a giudizio |
159 giorni |
Non disponibile |
Non disponibile |
* Si vous n'êtes pas en mesure de calculer la durée moyenne à partir de la date officielle d'incrimination, comment calculez-vous les délais de procédure?
41. Avez-vous un dispositif permettant d'analyser les temps morts des procédures (durées pendant lesquelles rien ne se passe concernant l'affaire)? OUI/NON
NO
Si oui, veuillez préciser:
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
42. Avez-vous une procédure interne vous permettant d'évaluer et de contrôler la durée des procédures? OUI/NON
Si oui, veuillez préciser:
Monitoraggio trimestrale da parte di magistrati incaricati di controllare la durata dei procedimenti fornendo elaborazioni statistiche dei dati tratti dal sistema informatico centralizzato.
43. Avez-vous des indicateurs de performance et des objectifs définis au regard des durées des procédures? OUI/NON
Si oui, veuillez préciser:
Nei primi mesi dell’anno 2001 è stata adottata una specifica iniziativa: il cosiddetto “Programma Strasburgo”. Sono stati indicati ai magistrati specifici criteri di trattazione dei procedimenti diretti ad abbreviare la durata e a ridurre il numero dei procedimenti più vecchi.
II. Relations entre votre tribunal et les usagers de la justice
44. Votre tribunal dispose-t-il d'enquêtes auprès des usagers ou des professions juridiques permettant de mesurer la confiance et la satisfaction du public dans les services rendus par le tribunal? OUI/NON
NO
Si oui, veuillez préciser:
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
III. Initiatives spécifiques développées par votre tribunal concernant les délais des procédures[16]
45. Votre tribunal a-t-il une expérience pratique en matière de contrôle ou de réduction des délais judiciaires? A-t-il notamment développé une ou plusieurs initiatives spécifiques dans ce domaine? Veuillez les décrire.
Adozione del cosiddetto « Programma Strasburgo » che comporta la verifica periodica della riduzione della durata dei procedimenti
46. Quels sont les effets de cette initiative? Veuillez préciser.
I procedimenti pendenti da più di tre anni sono diminuiti da n. 7.941 (prossimi a diventare 11.537 secondo l’andamento degli anni precedenti) nell’anno 2001 a n. 1.126 nell’aprile dell’anno 2005, con una riduzione costante. L’obiettivo del “Programma Strasburgo”, di durata pluriennale, è l’azzeramento tendenziale di quel dato.
47. Quelles pourraient être les modifications futures à apporter pour améliorer les résultats de cette initiative?
L’attuale codice di procedura non consente, in materia civile, ulteriori riduzioni. La riforma che entrerà in vigore nell’anno 2006 permetterà di abbreviare i tempi.
48. Cette initiative est-elle soutenue par les pouvoirs publics compétents dans votre pays? Si oui, veuillez préciser. Non si hanno elementi significativi per rispondere affermativamente.
49. Croyez-vous que cette initiative puisse être transposée à d'autres tribunaux dans les Etats européens?
SI
IV. Propositions concrètes de la part de votre tribunal concernant les délais optimaux et prévisibles
50. Veuillez soumettre vos commentaires ou suggestions pour la mise en oeuvre concrète, au niveau des tribunaux, du Programme-cadre: "Un nouvel objectif pour les systèmes judiciaires: le traitement de chaque affaire dans un délai optimal et prévisible ", en particulier au regard de certaines (ou de l'ensemble) des propositions suivantes:
a) assurer la transparence des délais auprès des usagers (voir Ligne d’action 3 : améliorer la prévisibilité des délais) Utile, in forma di « cronoprogramma » per ogni tipologia di processi . Inopportuno (per il momento), data la difficoltà oggettiva di rispettare i tempi programmati
b) réduire les temps morts des procédures (voir Ligne d’action 4 : définir des normes pour un délai optimal par type d’affaires et en contrôler l’application) Utile, ma molti termini e rinvii sono imposti dai codici di procedura.
c) assurer une motivation systématique des décisions judiciaires et assurer une notification rapide des décisions aux parties (voir Ligne d’action 9 : agir sur la qualité des procédures) La motivazione sintetica sarebbe utile ma è contraria alle consuetudini e alla formazione professionale della maggior parte dei magistrati italiani. Il nuovo codice di procedura civile ridurrà i tempi di notifica.
d) sélectionner les affaires en fonction de leur complexité (voir Ligne d’action 10 : fixer des priorités dans le traitement des affaires) Intervento oggettivamente utile. Di difficile attuazione per la presenza di prescrizioni del Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura che impongono l’assegnazione automatica dei procedimenti (con deroghe limitate).
e) organiser les audiences pour réduire les délais d'attente, en accordant une attention particulière aux victimes et aux témoins (voir Ligne d’action 11) Utile, in funzione del rispetto dovuto a testimoni e persone offese, Poco significativo, per ridurre la durata complessiva ed effettiva dei procedimenti.
f) instaurer une procédure permettant de remettre en mouvement une procédure en souffrance (voir Ligne d’action 12). Utile (meccanismo già in atto, nell’ambito del « programma Strasburgo », per alcune ipotesi di « sofferenza » ; per esempio : quando le parti non compaiono a udienze alterne ; quando il consulente indugia nel depositare la relazione ; quando le parti chiedono rinvio per « trattative in corso »).
g) organiser la transmission d'une affaire d'un tribunal non compétent vers le tribunal compétent (voir Ligne d’action 13 : assouplir les règles de compétence territoriale entre les juridictions de première instance). Utile per il settore penale. Irrilevante per il settore civile.
h) mettre en place des "contrats d'objectif" entre les tribunaux et les avocats (voir Ligne d’action 16 : organiser les relations avec les avocats) L’Ordine degli Avvocati di Torino è stato coinvolto nel « Programma Strasburgo » di questo Tribunale ; ha manifestato ampio consenso, collaborando con suggerimenti e consigli. Altre iniziative rilevanti sono state concordate con l’acquisizione di pareri preventivi.
i) renforcer la responsabilisation des experts judiciaires en matière de délais (voir Ligne d’action 17 : organiser un meilleur contrôle du respect des délais des experts judiciaires) Utile : i ritardi nei consulenti d’ufficio sono una delle più frequenti cause del ritardo dei procedimenti civili.
j) impliquer les professions judiciaires dans les efforts visant à atteindre des délais optimaux et prévisibles (voir Ligne d’action 18 : définir les moyens d’une association plus efficace des huissiers, des greffiers/Rechtspfleger, des notaires, et de toutes les autres professions qui contribuent à la justice). Utile. I notai già collaborano nelle procedure esecutive. Una legge di prossima entrata in vigore prevede il convolgimento anche di altri professionisti, quali avvocati e dottori commercialisti.
51. Vous êtes invités à commenter toute autre proposition contenue dans le Programme-cadre.
SEGUONO : - Allegato n. 1;
- Allegato n. 2.
ALLEGATO n. 1
Sezione 1^ Civile
A) Procedimenti contenziosi:
Cause per obbligazioni contrattuali (comprese le opposizioni a decreto ingiuntivo);
Cause previste dall’ art. 1, D.Lgs. n. 5/2003 (c.d. “societarie” e assimilate);
Cause di condominio;
Cause in cui sia parte la Pubblica Amministrazione e un ente locale;
Procedimenti elettorali;
Cause previste da leggi speciali.
Ricorsi ex art. 692 e 696 c.p.c.;
B) Procedimenti di volontaria giurisdizione o provvedimenti presidenziali:
Procedimento ex art. 2409 c.c.;
Provvedimenti di omologazione societaria (casi residui);
Nomina di liquidatori di società;
Convocazione di assemblea di società e associazioni;
Nomina e revoca di amministratori di condominio;
Procedimenti disciplinari relativi a Ordini professionali (notai, giornalisti, e simili);
Ammortamento titoli;
Rilascio copie in forma esecutiva (art. 476 cpc);
Istanze di ricostruzione atti (se non di competenza di altre Sezioni);
Interventi del giudice previsti dalla legge notarile;
Procedimenti Presidenziali e Camerali previsti dal D. Lgs. 17.1.2003 N. 5 (nomina esperti, convocazioni assembleari e altri).
Sezione 2^ Civile
A) Procedimenti contenziosi:
Cause per obbligazioni contrattuali (in particolare: adempimento contrattuale in forma specifica);
Cause in materia di diritti reali;
Cause in materia di successioni;
Cause in materia di scioglimento di comunioni e divisioni;
Procedimenti di esecuzione immobiliare (comprese le esecuzioni esattoriali immobiliari).
B) Procedimenti di volontaria giurisdizione o provvedimenti presidenziali:
Autorizzazione alla vendita di beni di interdetti,inabilitati e minori.
Sezione 3^ Civile
A) Procedimenti contenziosi:
Cause per obbligazioni contrattuali (comprese le opposizioni a decreto ingiuntivo);
Appelli;
Cause di condominio;
Procedimenti possessori, di denuncia di nuova opera e di danno temuto;
Prove delegate.
B) Procedimenti di volontaria giurisdizione (di rito collegiale o monocratico) o provvedimenti presidenziali:
Liquidazione di onorari e diritti agli avvocati (art. 29, l. 794/42) e procedimenti assimilati;
Opposizioni a liquidazione di compensi;
Cancellazione trascrizioni.
Sezione 4^ Civile
A) Procedimenti contenziosi:
Cause di responsabilità extra-contrattuale;
Cause di responsabilità contrattuale per l’esercizio di libere professioni;
Cause di responsabilità civile ex lege n. 117/88;
Cause di diritto delle assicurazioni.
B) Procedimenti di volontaria giurisdizione o provvedimenti presidenziali:
Autorizzazioni a transigere.
Sezione 5^ Civile
Cause in materia di lavoro, previdenza e assistenza obbligatorie.
Tutte le materie rientranti nella funzione di “giudice del lavoro”.
Sezione 6^ Civile
A) Procedimenti contenziosi:
Cause per obbligazioni contrattuali (in particolare in tema di fideiussioni e di diritto bancario, se escluse dal rito di cui all’art. 1, D.Lgs n. 5/2003);
Cause in materia di diritto comunitario;
Fallimenti e procedure concorsuali in generale;
Cause di revocatoria fallimentare e ordinaria.
B) Procedimenti di volontaria giurisdizione o provvedimenti presidenziali:
Riabilitazione da protesti;
Nomina di curatore speciale (art. 78 c.p.c.), fatta eccezione per quelli di competenza della Sez. 7^.
Sezione 7^ civile
A) Procedimenti contenziosi:
Cause di diritto di famiglia (nullità e annullabilità di matrimonio; separazione personale, divorzio; rapporti di filiazione; adozioni di maggiorenni; cause per alimenti);
Provvedimenti previsti dalla legge n. 154/2001;
Procedimenti per interdizione e inabilitazione;
Materia tutelare;
Materia dello stato civile
Cause relative ai “diritti della personalità”;
Cause per risarcimento danni per diffamazione.
B) Procedimenti di volontaria giurisdizione o provvedimenti presidenziali:
Adozione di maggiorenni;
Dichiarazioni di paternità e maternità (art. 274 c.c.);
Rettifiche di stato civile;
Cambiamento di sesso;
Provvedimenti ex art. 156 c.c.;
Ricorsi contro provvedimenti del giudice tutelare;
Provvedimenti ex art. 148 c.c.;
Nomina di curatore speciale per minori e incapaci;
Autorizzazione ai trapianti;
Trasferimenti di tutele;
Dichiarazione di assenza e di morte presunta;
Procedimenti relativi alla persona scomparsa;
Nulla osta al matrimonio dello straniero;
Riduzione dei termini per le pubblicazioni di matrimonio.
Sezione 8^ Civile
A) Procedimenti contenziosi:
Cause per obbligazioni contrattuali (comprese le opposizioni a decreto ingiuntivo);
Locazioni;
Procedimenti di esecuzione mobiliare (comprese le esecuzioni esattoriali mobiliari e presso terzi).
B) Procedimenti di volontaria giurisdizione o provvedimenti presidenziali:
Provvedimenti in materia di eredità giacenti ed eredità c.d. “beneficiate” e provvedimenti dell’ “Ufficio Successioni”;
Apertura forzata di cassette di sicurezza
Deposito di lodo arbitrale;
Provvedimenti in materia di indennità di espropriazione.
Sezione 9^ Civile
A) Procedimenti ordinari:
cause per obbligazioni contrattuali (comprese le opposizioni a decreto ingiuntivo);
procedimenti di convalida relativi agli stranieri e, in genere, provvedimenti relativi agli immigrati di cui al D.Lgs 286/98 e succ. modificazioni
cause di concorrenza sleale e cause relative al diritto industriale e al diritto della proprietà intellettuale e immateriale non comprese nelle previsione dell’art. 3 D.Lgs 168/2003;
contratti di franchising, merchandising, cessione e licenza di know-how, cessione e licenza di software;
B) Procedimenti di competenza distrettuale:
Cause previste dall’art. 3 D.Lgs. n. 168/2003: marchi nazionali, internazionali e comunitari; brevetti d’invenzione e per nuove varietà vegetali; modelli d’utilità, disegni e modelli; diritto d’autore; fattispecie di concorrenza sleale interferenti con la tutela della proprietà industriale e intellettuale.
C) Procedimenti di volontaria giurisdizione o provvedimenti presidenziali:
Provvedimenti previsti dall’art. 5 D.Lgs. n. 168/2003.
Sezione Specializzata Agraria
Procedimenti contenziosi:
Controversie agrarie di cui alla legge n. 503/1982 e succ. modif.
Sezioni 1^ e 2^ Stralcio
Procedimenti contenziosi:
Definizione dei procedimenti civili pendenti alla data del 30 aprile 1995, ai sensi della legge n. 276/97.
ALLEGATO n. 2
Sezione 1^ Penale
reati c.d. comuni;
reati contro la Pubblica Amministrazione;
reati concernenti il diritto penale dell’economia;
reati in materia di infortuni sul lavoro e tutela del consumatore;
reati in materia di edilizia e urbanistica.
Sezione 3^ Penale
reati c.d. comuni;
criminalità organizzata e D.D.A.;
reati contro la Pubblica Amministrazione;
reati concernenti la colpa professionale;
reati in materia di inquinamenti, di edilizia e urbanistica, di infortuni sul lavoro e tutela del consumatore;
reati in materia di informatica.
Sezione 4^ Penale
reati c.d. comuni;
reati concernenti il diritto penale dell’economia;
reati a danno delle c.d. “fasce deboli”.
Sezione 5^ Penale
reati c.d. comuni;
criminalità organizzata e D.D.A.;
reati in materia sessuale (Libro II, Titolo XII, Capo III, Sez. I, C.P.);
reati in materia di infortuni sul lavoro e tutela del consumatore;
reati concernenti la colpa professionale;
reati in materia di inquinamenti;
reati in materia di informatica;
reati a danno delle c.d. “fasce deboli”.
Sezione 1^ Corte d’Assise
reati e procedimenti di cui all’art. 5 c.p.p.
provvedimenti di cui alla legge n. 646/1982 e succ. modificazioni.
Sezione 2^ Corte d’Assise
reati e procedimenti di cui all’art. 5 c.p.p..
Submitted by: ______________________________
(name)
______________________________
pROPOSED court (Name): Riga Central District Court
address: ABRENES STR. 3, RIGA,
LATVIA, LV-1050
Contact person: AGNIJA KARLSONE
tel: + 371 7063807, + 371 6458289
E-mail: [email protected]
DESCRIPTION OF YOUR COURT
1) Please specify if your court is
a) a court of first instance or a higher instance court:
a court of first instance
b) a court of general jurisdiction or a specialised court (please specify):
a court of general jurisdiction
c) Please describe the structure of your court, in particular the number of specialised chambers:
There are not specialised chambers
2) What is the average volume and the nature (civil, commercial, administrative, criminal, etc.) of the cases addressed each year in your court?
1027 civil cases, 1698 administrative cases, 386 criminal cases (2004)
3) Please describe the composition of the court judicial and non judicial staff
a) Number of judges: 9 .
b) If appropriate, number of prosecutors attached to the court: - .
c) Number of non judge administrative staff: 30 .
(1) If possible, could you categorise between:
1) non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges (case file preparation, assistance during the hearing, keeping the minutes of the meetings, helping to prepare the decisions) such as registrars: 8 .
2) staff in charge of different administrative tasks as well as of the management of the courts (human resources management, material and equipment management, financial management, etc): 2 .
4) technical staff and staff in charge of maintenance functions: 20 .
5) Annual budget of the court (in €): 500657.07______________________
Does this amount include salaries? YES – NO
If yes, does it include salaries for the whole staff or for the non judicial staff only?
It includes salaries for the whole staff.
PART II – LATVIA - Riga Central District Court
I. The situation of the judicial timeframes in your court
If appropriate, please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases in civil and administrative matter.
|
Civil cases |
Administrative cases |
Divorce |
Employment dismissal |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
1027 |
1698 |
105 |
42 |
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
1448 |
1698 |
105 |
45 |
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
317 |
- |
28 |
13 |
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
15 |
- |
- |
2 |
|
Average length of proceedings (from date of filing the case to the court*) |
3 months |
1 month |
3 months |
2 months |
* If you cannot calculate the average length from the date of filing the case to the court, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
If appropriate, criminal cases in courts – please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases and specify definitions of incoming cases, starting and ending point of timeframes and pending cases:
|
Criminal cases |
Robbery cases |
Intentional homicide |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
386 |
34 |
2 |
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
440 |
41 |
1 |
|
Annual number of convicted persons |
81 |
1 |
|
|
Annual number of acquitted persons |
4 |
- |
|
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
203 |
20 |
1 |
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
14 |
- |
- |
|
Average length of proceedings (from the date of official charging*) |
3 months |
3 months |
6 months |
* If it is not possible to calculate the average length from the date of official charging, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
Do you have a way of analysing queuing time (time in which nothing happens with the case) during court procedures? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
____________________________________________________________
Do you have an internal procedure for evaluating and monitoring lengths of proceedings? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
____________________________________________________________
Do you have indicators of performance and targets as regards timeframes of procedures? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
They are stated in law
II. The relations between your court and the users of justice
Does your court have users’ or legal professionals’ surveys to measure public trust and satisfaction with the services delivered by the court? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
III. Specific initiatives carried on within your court as regards timeframes of procedure
7. Does your court have practical experience in monitoring or reducing judicial timeframes? Has it in particular developed one or several specific initiatives in this field? Please specify.
Riga Central District Court has a practical experience in monitoring and reducing judicial timeframes. Compare to previous years, cases are adjudicated in comparatively short time. It caused the fact that judicial timeframes are regularly monitored, recovered the transparency of the judicial timeframes, if in the court are observed continuous adjudication of the case then immediately is taken in solutions, separate category of cases – cases, what come of administrative judicial relations, they are forwarded to the competent court – to the Administrative District Court.
Monitoring:
In the court judicial timeframe is monitored by a head of the court’s chancellery, who once in the month or, of necessity, more often submits reports to the chief judge of the court.
Judges give an account in the weekly meetings or in individual discussions about cases, what are not timely allocated for adjudication or about cases, what are not continuously adjudicated.
There is set up controls related with complaints from parties involved in the trial or other persons.
Any interested person (chief judge, judge, chancellery officer, participants of the trial, visitor, journalist, representative from the Court Administration and so on) can find out, when the case will be adjudicated.
The court once in the half-year gives accounts to the Court Administration about the terms and the results of the adjudication of the case.
Reducing:
The judge reduces the judicial timeframes adjudicating the case timely, i.e., correctly organising his or her time (working hours).
Once in the week the chief judge holds the meeting for judges, where are discussed also problems related with timely examination of the case and solutions are found.
Postponing the adjudication of the case, obligatory request is immediately or in the offing to set other court hearing (cases are not “sleeping” without the examination date).
If there is no possibility adjudicate the case timely for objective reasons, then the judge is changed for another one or him is given help in preparing the case (for example, additional assistant of judge or secretary).
What are the effects of this initiative? Please specify.
The judicial timeframes are reduced and the cases are adjudicated on average in half-year time or in a year time for some objective reasons.
What could be the possible future modifications, which might improve the results of this initiative?
It is necessary to improve the Court’s Informative System, to scale up wages for court staff, to improve delivery forms of inquiry notices, it is necessary to change the legislation about the power of the chief judge in monitoring judges’ work, expansion of the judge assistant powers in settlement the simple questions and it will give an opportunity for judges to concentrate on settlement the difficult cases.
Does this initiative have the support of the responsible public authorities in your country? If so, please give details.
There are working groups regarding the improvement of the Court’s Informative System’s in the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Latvia and there are also working groups about elaboration of amendments in normative documentation’s.
Do you believe this initiative to be usable in other courts in European states?
Yes, I believe that this initiative would be usable in other courts in European states.
IV. Concrete proposals from your court as regards optimum and foreseeable timeframes
Please, submit your comments or suggestions for a practical implementation, at the court level, of the Framework-Programme: "A new objective for judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe", in particular as regards some (or all) of the following proposals:
ensuring the transparency on timeframes for the users (see Line of Action 3: improving the foreseeability of the timeframes)
In the portal of the courts every day are published the list of cases, what are examined in the court. In the court in visible place is a notice board, where is put the lists of cases, what will be examined in the current and in the next weeks. In the court is an officer, who gives the information both by telephone and by individual discussions. In the court is also an officer, who deals with mass media. Court Administration, all court’s staff and other courts have an access to the Court’s Informative System, what reflects all data about concrete case, id est, about terms.
reducing queuing times (see Line of Action 4: defining and monitoring standards for an optimum timeframe for each type of case)
Discussing the issue about the acceptance of the case in the court, we should prevent all drawbacks for examination the case timely. We should improve the work of the court staff, regularly qualifying them, and in this way reducing risk that the cases won’t be adjudicated for fault of the court staff, also it is necessary competitive wages to eliminate labour turnover. We should improve the work of the preparation of the case, i.e., already in the preparation meeting or when getting acquainted with the case, it is necessary to know all circumstances so the case already in the first time would be adjudicated. It is necessary to initiate a new official – junior judge or judge assistant (the Swedish experience), what would relieve the judges from the decision making in the simple cases. At the moment, settlement of different simple applications and requests take for judges very much time.
ensuring a systematic reasoning of court decisions and ensuring a prompt delivery of decisions to the parties (see Line of Action 9: acting on quality of proceedings)
It’s already happen. Laws state it.
selecting cases according to their complexity (see Line of Action 10: defining priorities in case management)
It is already happen in the practice: the cases are set for examination after their complexity, i.e., more difficult for a longer period of time, but simple cases in the course of time is added to the day’s schedule in the morning or in the evening. Besides into account is taken also other aspects, for example, whether the victim is under-age.
organising trials to reduce waiting time, while paying special attention to victims and witnesses (see Line of Action 11)
We are taking into consideration mentioned aspects, noticing their readiness come to the court, their place of residence and place of work, deciding about the type of the call and terms.
setting up a procedure to revive a pending case (see Line of Action 12)
Usually pending case is set up for examination promptly. If this not done, head of chancellery and chief judge implement control to set up the case for examination. There could be initiate disciplinary matter about the judge standstill in the adjudication of the case.
organisation of the transmission of a case from a non competent court to the competent court (see Line of Action 13: making more flexible the rules on territorial jurisdiction of first instance courts)
Riga Central District Court doesn’t support this idea. All concrete instance courts are of equal level and competence, as well as the judges’ wages are equal. However, if the courts would be specialising in the examination of concrete cases, the idea could be supported. For example, Administrative Court. It could be also Family Matter Court or Work Matter Court.
setting up "contracts of objective" between courts and lawyers (see Line of Action 16: organising the relationships with lawyers)
The lawyers really often are at fault in needless postponing the case and in delaying the case. Mentioned above “contracts of objective” between appropriate institutions could be supported.
enhancing the responsibility of judicial experts as regards judicial timeframes (see Line of Action 17: improving the monitoring of compliance with the time-limits by judicial experts)
Riga Central District Court supports the idea.
involving judicial professions in the efforts towards optimum and foreseeable timeframes (Line of Action 18: defining the modalities for having bailiffs, clerks / Rechtspfleger, notaries and all other professions involved in justice)
Riga Central District Court supports the idea.
13. Please, feel free to comment on any other proposals included in the Framework-Programme.
In our opinion there would be need to increase the state taxes to prevent an accident, when the complainant submits the case in the court only for frightening the defendant and the complainant would be interested to use all possible legal resources before submitting the request in the court. It is necessary to elaborate the standards in preparation the judicial document to exclude the possibility to submit in the court unprepared requests, often it clears up only in the court hearing and it is the reason why the proceedings is postponed. It is necessary to promote the responsibility for non-attendance the court hearing without apologetic reason, int.al., lawyers, prosecutors, experts and other persons. It is necessary to popularise the work of the courts to instil the respect toward the court in the society.
CEPEJ Network of Pilot Courts
Submitted by:
(name)
pROPOSED court (Name): (a) Vilnius County Court
address : gedimino pr. 40/1, vilnius
Contact person : Audrius Juozapavičius
tel: +370 5 261 73 25
E-mail: vapygarda@vat.lt
***
DESCRIPTION OF YOUR COURT
1) Please specify if your court is
a) a court of first instance or a higher instance court:
A court of first instance for some types of cases and a court of appeal instance for other types of cases.
b) a court of general jurisdiction or a specialised court (please specify):
A court of general jurisdiction.
c) Please describe the structure of your court, in particular the number of specialised chambers:
There are two chambers at our court: the Chamber of Criminal Cases and the Chamber of Civil Cases.
2) What is the average volume and the nature (civil, commercial, administrative, criminal, etc.) of the cases addressed each year in your court?
Civil cases – 1579
Criminal cases – 375
3) Please describe the composition of the court judicial and non judicial staff
a) Number of judges: 48
b) If appropriate, number of prosecutors attached to the court: 0
c) Number of non judge administrative staff: 122
d) If possible, could you categorise between:
1) non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges (case file preparation, assistance during the hearing, keeping the minutes of the meetings, helping to prepare the decisions) such as registrars: 59
2) staff in charge of different administrative tasks as well as of the management of the courts (human resources management, material and equipment management, financial management, etc): 42
3) technical staff and staff in charge of maintenance functions: 21
4) Annual budget of the court (in €): € 2 977 000
Does this amount include salaries? YES
If yes, does it include salaries for the whole staff or for the non judicial staff only?
It includes salaries for the whole staff.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
Network of Pilot-courts
Lithuania: Part II - QUESTIONNAIRE
I. The situation of the judicial timeframes in your court
1) If appropriate, please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases in civil and administrative matter.
|
Civil cases |
Administrative cases |
Divorce |
Employment dismissal |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
1579 |
_ |
_ |
_ |
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
832 |
_ |
_ |
_ |
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
335 |
_ |
_ |
_ |
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
50 |
_ |
_ |
_ |
|
Average length of proceedings (from date of filing the case to the court*) |
3 to 4 months |
_ |
_ |
_ |
2) If you cannot calculate the average length from the date of filing the case to the court, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
If appropriate, criminal cases in courts – please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases and specify definitions of incoming cases, starting and ending point of timeframes and pending cases:
|
Criminal cases |
Robbery cases |
Intentional homicide |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
375 |
_ |
104 |
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
425 |
_ |
75 |
|
Annual number of convicted persons |
620 |
_ |
82 |
|
Annual number of acquitted persons |
52 |
_ |
5 |
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
24 |
_ |
5 |
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
9 |
_ |
0 |
|
Average length of proceedings (from the date of official charging*) |
3 months |
_ |
3 months |
If it is not possible to calculate the average length from the date of official charging, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
Please note: the data is of the cases of first instance only.
3) Do you have a way of analysing queuing time (time in which nothing happens with the case) during court procedures? YES
Administrative control is exercised.
4) Do you have an internal procedure for evaluating and monitoring lengths of proceedings? YES
5) Do you have indicators of performance and targets as regards timeframes of procedures? YES
The proceedings are indicated in computer programs as well as at the office.
II. The relations between your court and the users of justice
6) Does your court have users’ or legal professionals’ surveys to measure public trust and satisfaction with the services delivered by the court? NO(while there is an effective system of an administrative control).
III. Specific initiatives carried on within your court as regards timeframes of procedure
7) Does your court have practical experience in monitoring or reducing judicial timeframes? Has it in particular developed one or several specific initiatives in this field? Please specify.
Yes. Court’s administrative control is exercised.
8) What are the effects of this initiative? Please specify.
Yes, there is an effect.
9) What could be the possible future modifications which might improve the results of this initiative?
It is not planned to modify the initiative in the nearest future.
10) Does this initiative have the support of the responsible public authorities in your country? If so, please give details.
Not known.
11) Do you believe this initiative to be usable in other courts in European states?
We are not able to tell.
IV. Concrete proposals from your court as regards optimum and foreseeable timeframes
12) Please, submit your comments or suggestions for a practical implementation, at the court level, of the Framework-Programme: "A new objective for judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe", in particular as regards some (or all) of the following proposals:
13) ensuring the transparency on timeframes for the users (see Line of Action 3: improving the foreseeability of the timeframes)
14) reducing queuing times (see Line of Action 4: defining and monitoring standards for an optimum timeframe for each type of case)
15) ensuring a systematic reasoning of court decisions and ensuring a prompt delivery of decisions to the parties (see Line of Action 9: acting on quality of proceedings)
16) selecting cases according to their complexity (see Line of Action 10: defining priorities in case management)
17) organising trials to reduce waiting time, while paying special attention to victims and witnesses (see Line of Action 11)
18) setting up a procedure to revive a pending case (see Line of Action 12)
19) organisation of the transmission of a case from a non competent court to the competent court (see Line of Action 13: making more flexible the rules on territorial jurisdiction of first instance courts)
20) setting up "contracts of objective" between courts and lawyers (see Line of Action 16: organising the relationships with lawyers)
21) enhancing the responsibility of judicial experts as regards judicial timeframes (see Line of Action 17: improving the monitoring of compliance with the time-limits by judicial experts)
22) involving judicial professions in the efforts towards optimum and foreseeable timeframes (Line of Action 18: defining the modalities for having bailiffs, clerks / Rechtspfleger, notaries and all other professions involved in justice)
23) Please, feel free to comment on any other proposals included in the Framework-Programme.
Proposals as regards optimum and foreseeable timeframes:
24) To improve the dispensation of the cases to judges (dispensation according to complexity of the case and other characteristics).
25) The optimization of the number of judicial and non – judicial staff.
26) The usage of court couriers and more speedy delivery of documents.
27) The improvement of laws regulating proceedings in order to evade the delay.
28) Increase of responsibility of failure to appear before the judge and to comply with the court rulings.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
Network of Pilot-courts
Lithuania
Member state: ______________________________
Submitted by: ______________________________
(name)
pROPOSED court (Name): (b) Vilnius Regional Administrative Court
Žygimantų st. 2, vilnius
address:
Contact person: zita smirnovienė
+37052648722
tel: ______________________________
E-mail: ______________________________
DESCRIPTION OF YOUR COURT
1. Please specify if your court is
a) a court of first instance or a higher instance court:
A court of first instance
b) a court of general jurisdiction or a specialised court (please specify):
Administrative court
c) Please describe the structure of your court, in particular the number of specialised chambers:
All judges deal with administrative cases
There is no specialised chambers. The structure: Chief judge, deputy judge, 18
judges.
2. What is the average volume and the nature (civil, commercial, administrative, criminal, etc.) of the cases addressed each year in your court?
Half of the cases addressed to the court each year are administrative. Half – penalty cases (claims against officials resolutions (decisions) to punish citizens in infringement cases. The number of cases are 4077
3. Please describe the composition of the court judicial and non judicial staff
a) Number of judges: ____20______
b) If appropriate, number of prosecutors attached to the court: ___-_______
c) Number of non judge administrative staff: ____-______
If possible, could you categorise between:
1. non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges (case file preparation, assistance during the hearing, keeping the minutes of the meetings, helping to prepare the decisions) such as registrars: ___32_______
2. staff in charge of different administrative tasks as well as of the management of the courts (human resources management, material and equipment management, financial management, etc): ___2_______
3. technical staff and staff in charge of maintenance functions: ____15______
4. Annual budget of the court (in €): ______1 294 202 _________________
Does this amount include salaries? YES
If yes, does it include salaries for the whole staff or for the non judicial staff only?
It includes salaries for the whole staff
Network of Pilot-courts
LITHUANIA: PART II - QUESTIONNAIRE
I. The situation of the judicial timeframes in your court
1) If appropriate, please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases in civil and administrative matter.
|
Civil cases |
Administrative cases |
Divorce |
Employment dismissal |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
4077 cases |
|||
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
4354 cases |
|||
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
22 cases |
|||
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
1 case |
|||
|
Average length of proceedings (from date of filing the case to the court*) |
3 month |
* If you cannot calculate the average length from the date of filing the case to the court, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
2) If appropriate, criminal cases in courts – please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases and specify definitions of incoming cases, starting and ending point of timeframes and pending cases:
|
Criminal cases |
Robbery cases |
Intentional homicide |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
|||
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
|||
|
Annual number of convicted persons |
|||
|
Annual number of acquitted persons |
|||
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
|||
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
|||
|
Average length of proceedings (from the date of official charging*) |
* If it is not possible to calculate the average length from the date of official charging, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
3) Do you have a way of analysing queuing time (time in which nothing happens with the case) during court procedures? NO
If yes, please specify:
4) Do you have an internal procedure for evaluating and monitoring lengths of proceedings? YES
If yes, please specify:
Now the length of proceedings is calculated technically by person according
____________________________________________________________
to the law, later it will be done by software LITECO . The length of ____________________________________________________________
proceedings was started to calculate in the second half of year in 2002
____________________________________________________________
5) Do you have indicators of performance and targets as regards timeframes of procedures? YES
If yes, please specify:
The indicators of performance and timeframes of procedures at least once
in a half of a year is officially sent to the National court administration, later it will be automatically checked and sent by software LITECO
II. The relations between your court and the users of justice
6) Does your court have users’ or legal professionals’ surveys to measure public trust and satisfaction with the services delivered by the court? NO
If yes, please specify:
III. Specific initiatives carried on within your court as regards timeframes of procedure[17]
7) Does your court have practical experience in monitoring or reducing judicial timeframes? Has it in particular developed one or several specific initiatives in this field? Please specify.
a) Since the 2001 year the court proceedings was reorganized. Some of the judges started to deal with the complaints brought to the court, others were hearing the cases. The timeframes of the complaints admission was shorten from two month till three weeks.
b) In the beginning of each month the indicators of non-dealed cases during three month from the incoming day are brought to the chief judge of the court which summarises them and makes notes. The software LITECO will make all these accounts automatically.
8) What are the effects of this initiative? Please specify.
The main effect of this initiative shows that judges during the procedure shouldn’t pass the timeframes given by the law.
9) What could be the possible future modifications which might improve the results of this initiative?
The software LITECO will automatically summarise the indicators of the cases and bring them to the chief judge of the court. There won’t be any technical job made by staff of court.
10) Does this initiative have the support of the responsible public authorities in your country? If so, please give details.
No
11) Do you believe this initiative to be usable in other courts in European states?
We don’t have information about the situation of courts in other European countries so we can’t speak up.
IV. Concrete proposals from your court as regards optimum and foreseeable timeframes
12) Please, submit your comments or suggestions for a practical implementation, at the court level, of the Framework-Programme: "A new objective for judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe", in particular as regards some (or all) of the following proposals:
a) ensuring the transparency on timeframes for the users (see Line of Action 3: improving the foreseeability of the timeframes)
the special software in our court will ensure and make much easier the timeframes for the procedures also to control them
b) reducing queuing times (see Line of Action 4: defining and monitoring standards for an optimum timeframe for each type of case)
more effective control brought in our court in 2001 reduced the queuing time during the complaints admission, also the software LITECO will make this control more effective
c) ensuring a systematic reasoning of court decisions and ensuring a prompt delivery of decisions to the parties (see Line of Action 9: acting on quality of proceedings)
the decisions of our court are promptly delivered to the parties and is one of the main priorities of the court’s duty
d) selecting cases according to their complexity (see Line of Action 10: defining priorities in case management)
the cases in our court by their complexity are dispensed to all judges
e) organising trials to reduce waiting time, while paying special attention to victims and witnesses (see Line of Action 11)
trials in our court are organized in the most effective way of time measures
f) setting up a procedure to revive a pending case (see Line of Action 12)
all pended cases in our court are immediately revived when the pending problems are solved
g) organisation of the transmission of a case from a non competent court to the competent court (see Line of Action 13: making more flexible the rules on territorial jurisdiction of first instance courts)
the rules on organisation of the transmission of a cases from a non competent court to the competent court are adjusted by the law and is quite effective among first instance courts
h) setting up "contracts of objective" between courts and lawyers (see Line of Action 16: organising the relationships with lawyers)
free from comments
i) enhancing the responsibility of judicial experts as regards judicial timeframes (see Line of Action 17: improving the monitoring of compliance with the time-limits by judicial experts)
free from comments
j) involving judicial professions in the efforts towards optimum and foreseeable timeframes (Line of Action 18: defining the modalities for having bailiffs, clerks / Rechtspfleger, notaries and all other professions involved in justice)
free from comments
13) Please, feel free to comment on any other proposals included in the Framework-Programme.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
Network of Pilot-courts
Submitted by:
(name)
______________________________
Court (Name): Administrative Court of Luxembourg
Address: ______________________________
______________________________
Contact person: Serge Schroeder
(Awaiting electronic copy)
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
Network of Pilot-courts
Member state: Republic of MaltA
Submitted by: MArco cachia (cepej co-ordinator)
pROPOSED court (Name): 1ST hall civil court no2
address: Courts of malta,
republic street
Valletta
Malta
Contact person: hon.judge g. caruana-demajo
tel: (+356) 25902280
E-mail: [email protected]
***
DESCRIPTION OF YOUR COURT
22) Please specify if your court is
a) a court of first instance or a higher instance court:
A court of first instance
b) a court of general jurisdiction or a specialised court (please specify):
General civil jurisdiction except for family issues cases
c) Please describe the structure of your court, in particular the number of specialised chambers:
In our country, we have two general courts of civil jurisdiction (one in Malta and one in Gozo) a specialised court dealing with family related issues, and a court of voluntary jurisdiction.
23) What is the average volume and the nature (civil, commercial, administrative, criminal, etc.) of the cases addressed each year in your court?
396 (three hundred ninety-six) civil, commercial and administrative cases. We do not record our cases by nature but by judge to whom the cases are assigned. (source: courts statistics web site)
24) Please describe the composition of the court judicial and non judicial staff
a) Number of judges: 1 (one)
b) If appropriate, number of prosecutors attached to the court: not applicable
c) Number of non judge administrative staff: 6 (six)
If possible, could you categorise between:
§ non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges (case file preparation, assistance during the hearing, keeping the minutes of the meetings, helping to prepare the decisions) such as registrars: 6 (six)
§ staff in charge of different administrative tasks as well as of the management of the courts (human resources management, material and equipment management, financial management, etc):
A centralised administration network that supports the judicial organisation and performs these tasks fully
§ technical staff and staff in charge of maintenance functions: same as above
25) Annual budget of the court (in €):
There is only one budget allocation which includes all courts and supporting networks
Does this amount include salaries? YES – NO
If yes, does it include salaries for the whole staff or for the non judicial staff only?
____________________________________________________________
Please return this form, through the national member of the CEPEJ, by 1 May 2005 to:
Secretariat of the CEPEJ
DG I – Legal Affairs, Council of Europe, F – 67075 Strasbourg
e-mail: [email protected] or fax: + 33 3 88 41 37 43.
(CEPEJ)
Réseau des tribunaux-référents
PROPOSE PAR: DIRECTION DES SERVICES JUDICIAIRES
TRIBUNAL PROPOSE (NOm): Tribunal De Premiere Instance
adressE: PALAIS DE JUSTICE
5, rue colonel bellando de castro
98000 MONACO
personNE DE CONTACT: M. Bruno nardi- ASsistant judiciaire
PALAIS DE JUSTICE
5, rue colonel bellando de castro
98000 MONACO
Autre personne
( questions
administratives) Mlle Antonella SAMPO, administrateur
PALAIS DE JUSTICE
5, rue colonel bellando de castro
98000 MONACO
tel: M. NARDI : + 377 93 15 81 65
Mlle sampo : +377 93 15 81 63
E-mail: [email protected]
***
DESCRIPTION DE VOTRE TRIBUNAL
26) Veuillez indiquer si votre tribunal est
a) un tribunal de première instance ou d'une instance supérieure:
Il s’agit d’un tribunal de première instance.
b) un tribunal de droit commun ou spécialisé (veuillez préciser):
Le tribunal de première instance connaît :
1° - en premier ressort, de toutes les actions civiles ou commerciales qui n’entrent pas, en raison de leur nature ou de leur valeur, dans la compétence du juge de paix ;
2° - en premier ressort également, comme juge de droit commun en matière administrative, de toutes les actions autres que celles dont la connaissance est attribuée par la Constitution ou la loi au tribunal suprême ou à une autre juridiction ;
3° - en appel, des jugements rendus en premier ressort par le juge de paix et des sentences arbitrales prononcées en matière civile ou commerciale, ainsi que des jugements dont la connaissance lui est réservée par la loi .
c) Veuillez décrire la structure de votre tribunal, notamment le nombre de chambres et leur spécialisation:
Le tribunal de première instance est une juridiction collégiale siégeant à trois magistrats.
Le tribunal est composé d’un Président, d’un ou deux Vice-Présidents, d’un ou plusieurs Premiers juges, de juges et de juges suppléants. Il ne comprend qu’une seule chambre : le Président peut déléguer ses pouvoirs à l’un de ses Vice-Présidents ou même à un juge, selon les nécessités du service. Sont rattachés les juges d’instruction, le juge tutélaire et le juge chargé des accidents du travail.
Le tribunal correctionnel est composé des mêmes juges que le tribunal de première instance. Il n’existe pas à Monaco une division telle que celle qui est en France entre chambres civiles et chambres correctionnelles. Tous les magistrats du tribunal ont donc vocation à siéger aussi bien au civil qu’au pénal.
27) Quels sont le volume moyen et la nature (civile, commerciale, administrative, pénale, etc.) des affaires traitées chaque année dans votre tribunal?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
28) Veuillez décrire la composition du personnel judiciaire et non judiciaire du tribunal
a) Nombre de juges: 13 juges au Tribunal de première instance :
- 9 juges au Tribunal de première instance
1 juge tutélaire
1 juge chargé des accidents du travail
2 juges d’instruction
Il y a 26 juges en totalité dans la Principauté de Monaco.
b) Le cas échéant, nombre de procureurs près votre tribunal: 5 magistrats ( 1 Procureur Général, 1 premier substitut, 3 substituts)
c) Nombre de personnel administratif non juge: 27
Si possible, veuillez distinguer entre:
§ le personnel non juge dont la tâche est d'assister le juge (préparation des dossiers, assistance pendant les audiences, rédaction des minutes des réunions, assistance dans la préparation de la décision), tels que les greffiers: 16
§ le personnel en charge des différentes tâches administratives et de gestion du tribunal (ressources humaines, gestion du matériel et des équipements, gestion financière, etc): 5
§ le personnel technique et de maintenance: 6
29) Budget annuel du tribunal (en €): Année 2005 : 960.000 euros
Ce montant inclut-il les salaires? OUI - NON
Si oui, inclut-il les salaires de tout le personnel ou du seul personnel non juge?
____________________________________________________________
Nous vous serions reconnaissants de bien vouloir retourner ce formulaire, par le biais du membre national de la CEPEJ, avant le 1 mai 2005, au Secrétariat de la CEPEJ:
DG I – Affaires Juridique, Conseil de l'Europe, F – 67075 Strasbourg
e-mail: [email protected] ou fax: + 33 3 88 41 37 43.
Le Secrétariat prendra ensuite contact en temps utile avec vous au sujet du questionnaire ci-joint.
Commission EUROPENNE POUR L'EFFICACITE DE LA JUStice
(CEPEJ)
Réseau de tribunaux-référents
QUESTIONNAIRE
I. Situation des délais judiciaires dans votre tribunal
52. Le cas échéant, veuillez compléter ce tableau relatif au nombre d'affaires, à la durée des procédures et au stock d'affaires civiles et administratives:
|
Affaires civiles |
Affaires administratives |
Divorces |
Licenciements |
|
|
Nombre annuel d'affaires entrant |
752 |
/ |
77 |
33 |
|
Nombre annuel de décisions judiciaires |
600 |
/ |
61 |
10 |
|
Nombre d'affaires en attente (non jugées dans l'année) |
1.225 |
/ |
12 |
21 |
|
Nombre d'affaires en attente depuis plus de 3 ans |
/ |
/ |
0 |
0 |
|
Durée moyenne des procédures (depuis la date d'introduction de la requête auprès du tribunal *) |
16.35 |
/ |
3.08 |
9.8 |
* Si vous n'êtes pas en mesure de calculer la durée moyenne à partir de la date d'introduction de la requête, comment calculez-vous les délais de procédure?
53. Le cas échéant, veuillez compléter ce tableau relatif au nombre d'affaires, à la durée des procédures et au stock d'affaires pénales:
|
Affaires pénales |
Affaires pour vols |
Affaires pour homicide volontaire |
|
|
Nombre annuel d'affaires entrant |
748 |
80 |
|
|
Nombre annuel de décisions judiciaires |
703 |
80 |
|
|
Nombre annuel de personnes condamnées |
759 |
76 |
|
|
Nombre annuel de personnes acquittées |
4 |
||
|
Nombre d'affaires en attente (non jugées dans l'année) |
|||
|
Nombre d'affaires en attente depuis plus de 3 ans |
|||
|
Durée moyenne des procédures (depuis la date officielle d'incrimination)* |
* Si vous n'êtes pas en mesure de calculer la durée moyenne à partir de la date officielle d'incrimination, comment calculez-vous les délais de procédure?
Il est à noter que ces chiffres proviennent des statistiques établies par les greffes des tribunaux civil et correctionnel pour l’année judiciaire 2004-2005.
54. Avez-vous un dispositif permettant d'analyser les temps morts des procédures (durées pendant lesquelles rien ne se passe concernant l'affaire)? OUI/NON
Si oui, veuillez préciser:
L’appel des causes lors des audience collégiales ( ou d’une audience mensuelle spéciale) permet de contrôler la durée des délais donnés aux avocats pour conclure. Le rôle du Président est , à cet égard, fondamental, mais la loi ne prévoit pas de sanction.
55. Avez-vous une procédure interne vous permettant d'évaluer et de contrôler la durée des procédures? OUI/NON
Si oui, veuillez préciser:
Le contrôle manuel permet d’évaluer cette durée et l’appel des causes permet d’assurer un certain contrôle, sans aucune mesure de coercition.
56. Avez-vous des indicateurs de performance et des objectifs définis au regard des durées des procédures? OUI/NON
Si oui, veuillez préciser:
La durée d’une instance en divorce non contentieuse est performante ne Principauté de Monaco ( de l’ordre de trois à quatre semaines depuis le dépôt de la requête jusqu’au jugement). La durée des autres instances est étroitement liée à la complexité du contentieux et du litige, mais la durée moyenne des délibérés est d’environ 28 jours.
II. Relations entre votre tribunal et les usagers de la justice
57. Votre tribunal dispose-t-il d'enquêtes auprès des usagers ou des professions juridiques permettant de mesurer la confiance et la satisfaction du public dans les services rendus par le tribunal? OUI/NON
Si oui, veuillez préciser:
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
III. Initiatives spécifiques développées par votre tribunal concernant les délais des procédures[18]
58. Votre tribunal a-t-il une expérience pratique en matière de contrôle ou de réduction des délais judiciaires? A-t-il notamment développé une ou plusieurs initiatives spécifiques dans ce domaine? Veuillez les décrire.
59. Quels sont les effets de cette initiative? Veuillez préciser.
Réponses aux questions 7 et 8
Les articles 175 et suivants du code de procédure civile contiennent tous les instruments nécessaires à l'accélération du cours de la procédure. Leur mise en œuvre est une question de volonté judiciaire.
Or il me semble que cette volonté a évolué et continue de le faire puisqu'on passe progressivement d'une pratique fondée sur l'idée que les parties sont maîtresses du litige, à une affirmation plus prononcée du pouvoir de régulation du Tribunal. On peut citer, à titre d'exemple :
* l'autorisation d'appeler en garantie,
* les initiatives tendant à éviter les empilements de délais, comme le fait de fixer une audience de plaidoirie avec possibilité de conclure jusqu'à une date déterminée.
En matière pénale, le Tribunal correctionnel s'est récemment préoccupé de mise en état à l'occasion d'une affaire dans laquelle la partie poursuivie prétendait faire rejeter des débats des pièces produites par l'autre la veille de l'audience. Le Tribunal a estimé que ces pièces devaient être maintenues aux débats tout en accordant à la partie poursuivie un délai pour les examiner et y répondre. S'inspirant par analogie de la procédure civile, alors que le code de procédure pénale est muet sur ce point, il a en outre prévu, pour prévenir tout autre incident, que, sauf circonstances insurmontables, les parties devraient se communiquer toute nouvelle pièce au moins une semaine avant l'audience prévue.
La pratique dite « de la reprise de conclusions » (en réalité réouverture des débats impliquant nouveau dépôt de dossier et délibéré immédiat) constitue également une initiative originale de réduction des délais en cas de difficulté touchant à la composition du Tribunal, relativement fréquente à Monaco.
De façon générale, cette volonté du Tribunal a été psychologiquement soutenue par le souci du délai raisonnable prévu dans la CEDH.
On en trouve d'autres exemples, hors de la procédure ordinaire, dans la procédure de distribution de deniers régie par les articles 723 et suivants du C.P.C. Ces textes prévoient une succession de démarches et de délais correspondants que la pratique a simplifiés. De façon générale, le greffe prend en charge des formalités qui devraient être effectuées par une des parties :
* les frais de la publication préalable au Journal de Monaco sont avancés par le greffier en chef, alors que l'article 726 du code prévoit le contraire ; en contrepartie, le greffier en chef est admis comme un créancier dans la procédure ;
* alors que les articles 730 et 731 prévoient, après l'échec de la phase amiable de la procédure, la signification aux créanciers opposants de produire leurs créances respectives, il suffit de demander aux créanciers, lors de la phase amiable, s'ils sont d'accord pour se dispenser de cette sommation ; cet accord recueilli, la décision ordonnant l'ouverture de la procédure contentieuse prévoit alors qu'elle vaut elle-même sommation de produire, en précisant clairement le délai pour le faire et les sanctions encourues en cas de carence.
On peut en tirer les idées suivantes :
1. - L'exigence du délai raisonnable, prévue par un traité international qui prime sur la loi nationale, permet d'envisager un réaménagement immédiat du régime procédural lorsqu'il implique des délais inutiles ;
2. - D'autres exceptions aux règles procédurales peuvent être fondées sur le seul accord des parties dès lors qu'on admet que ces règles ne sont pas nécessairement d'ordre public ; II convient donc de réfléchir sur la distinction, parmi ces règles, entre celles qui sont d'ordre public et celles qui n'ont pas ce caractère.
En outre, les délais judiciaires peuvent être réduits après le prononcé de la décision. Un exemple peut, là aussi, être tiré de la procédure de distribution. Alors que l'article 736 du C.P.C. prévoit, par renvoi à l'article 728, un système complexe de saisine de la Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations par un des créanciers en vue du paiement, le greffier adresse directement à cette Caisse le bordereau nécessaire, ce qui simplifie le travail de tous. Il faut simplement prendre le soin de préciser clairement l'adresse des créanciers dans la décision. L'expérience a montré qu'il est difficile de confier à une des parties, naturellement égoïste, le soin d'agir dans l'intérêt commun de tous.
D'où une troisième idée :
3. - La prise en charge d'office par le greffe de formalités en principe confiées à l'une des parties permet de substantiels gains de temps.
60. Quelles pourraient être les modifications futures à apporter pour améliorer les résultats de cette initiative?
Les articles 174 et suivants du code de procédure civile permettent l'organisation d'une autre forme de mise en état, qui comporterait la désignation, lors de l'ouverture de chaque dossier, d'un magistrat chargé de le suivre. Cette solution permettrait à la fois :
* une réduction des délais d'instruction, en permettant la détection des demandes de renvoi inutiles et en provoquant toutes les explications nécessaires par un seul jeu de conclusions, au lieu de la succession de conclusions sur des questions diverses ;
* une réduction plus relative du délai d'établissement de la décision, si le magistrat se trouve en mesure de rédiger dès avant l'audience de plaidoirie les éléments constants du litige et l'exposé des prétentions des parties.
Ce système impose cependant un bouleversement du service du tribunal et il reste à évaluer si les effectifs de son personnel permettent actuellement une telle modification des pratiques.
61. Cette initiative est-elle soutenue par les pouvoirs publics compétents dans votre pays? Si oui, veuillez préciser.
Les initiatives ci-dessus décrites, en matière de distribution de deniers, ne nécessitent pas de modifications législatives dès lors qu'on admet que les règles de procédure en cause ne sont pas d'ordre public.
62. Croyez-vous que cette initiative puisse être transposée à d'autres tribunaux dans les Etats européens?
Les réflexions qui précèdent ne peuvent être transposées que dans les systèmes judiciaires admettant une procédure souple en matière civile.
IV. Propositions concrètes de la part de votre tribunal concernant les délais optimaux et prévisibles
63. Veuillez soumettre vos commentaires ou suggestions pour la mise en oeuvre concrète, au niveau des tribunaux, du Programme-cadre: "Un nouvel objectif pour les systèmes judiciaires: le traitement de chaque affaire dans un délai optimal et prévisible ", en particulier au regard de certaines (ou de l'ensemble) des propositions suivantes:
a) assurer la transparence des délais auprès des usagers (voir Ligne d’action 3 : améliorer la prévisibilité des délais)
b) réduire les temps morts des procédures (voir Ligne d’action 4 : définir des normes pour un délai optimal par type d’affaires et en contrôler l’application)
c) assurer une motivation systématique des décisions judiciaires et assurer une notification rapide des décisions aux parties (voir Ligne d’action 9 : agir sur la qualité des procédures)
d) sélectionner les affaires en fonction de leur complexité (voir Ligne d’action 10 : fixer des priorités dans le traitement des affaires)
e) organiser les audiences pour réduire les délais d'attente, en accordant une attention particulière aux victimes et aux témoins (voir Ligne d’action 11)
f) instaurer une procédure permettant de remettre en mouvement une procédure en souffrance (voir Ligne d’action 12)
g) organiser la transmission d'une affaire d'un tribunal non compétent vers le tribunal compétent (voir Ligne d’action 13 : assouplir les règles de compétence territoriale entre les juridictions de première instance)
h) mettre en place des "contrats d'objectif" entre les tribunaux et les avocats (voir Ligne d’action 16 : organiser les relations avec les avocats)
i) renforcer la responsabilisation des experts judiciaires en matière de délais (voir Ligne d’action 17 : organiser un meilleur contrôle du respect des délais des experts judiciaires)
j) impliquer les professions judiciaires dans les efforts visant à atteindre des délais optimaux et prévisibles (voir Ligne d’action 18 : définir les moyens d’une association plus efficace des huissiers, des greffiers/Rechtspfleger, des notaires, et de toutes les autres professions qui contribuent à la justice).
64. Vous êtes invités à commenter toute autre proposition contenue dans le Programme-cadre.
Il semble que la plupart des points évoqués ont déjà leur réponse dans le droit monégasque : la motivation systématique, la notification rapide, l'orientation des affaires civiles en fonction de leur complexité, le suivi des procédures en souffrance, le suivi des expertises sont prévus et réglementés par les textes.
Cependant , la motivation des décisions pénales qui font figures de « parents pauvres » dans notre pratique pourrait être améliorée et peut-être aussi celle des décisions prises en chambre du conseil en matière de protection des incapables, souvent trop stéréotypées alors qu'elles touchent directement aux libertés.
Certaines améliorations paraissent possibles sans modifications des textes dès lors qu'elles ne les interdisent pas : transparence des délais (annonce systématique d'une date de délibéré), réduction des délais d'attente aux audiences, contrats d'objectif et implications des professions judiciaires.
La transmission des affaires vers le tribunal compétent, en cas de déclaration d'incompétence, pourrait être réglée, à défaut de texte, par accord entre les parties : il suffirait des interroger, spécialement sur ce point au moment du prononcé de la décision et de constater leur accord en vertu duquel la procédure sera directement transmise par les soins du greffe à la juridiction compétente pour y être reprise, sans qu'il y ait lieu d'autre acte de saisine.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
Network of Pilot-courts
QUESTIONNAIRE
I. The situation of the judicial timeframes in your court
65. If appropriate, please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases in civil and administrative matter.
|
Civil cases |
Administrative cases |
Divorce |
Employment dismissal |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
1384 (Year 2004)* |
|||
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
2168(Year 2004)* |
|||
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
7238(Year 2004)* |
|||
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
4973(Year 2004)* |
|||
|
Average length of proceedings (from date of filing the case to the court*) |
* the figures include all cases before the civil courts except family related case s(source: courts statistics web site)
* If you cannot calculate the average length from the date of filing the case to the court, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
Courts statistics are recorded by an age analysis system. The parameters of calculations are from the date of filing to the date when the judgment is handed down
66. If appropriate, criminal cases in courts – please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases and specify definitions of incoming cases, starting and ending point of timeframes and pending cases:
|
Criminal cases |
Robbery cases |
Intentional homicide |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
14906 (Year 2004)* |
||
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
13702 (Year 2004)* |
||
|
Annual number of convicted persons |
Not available |
||
|
Annual number of acquitted persons |
Not available |
||
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
8432 (year 2004)* |
||
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
|||
|
Average length of proceedings (from the date of official charging*) |
* If it is not possible to calculate the average length from the date of official charging, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
67. Do you have a way of analysing queuing time (time in which nothing happens with the case) during court procedures? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
No________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
68. Do you have an internal procedure for evaluating and monitoring lengths of proceedings? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
Not particularly, but an age analysis system was lately introduced
_________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
69. Do you have indicators of performance and targets as regards timeframes of procedures? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
No_________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
II. The relations between your court and the users of justice
70. Does your court have users’ or legal professionals’ surveys to measure public trust and satisfaction with the services delivered by the court? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
No__________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
III. Specific initiatives carried on within your court as regards timeframes of procedure[19]
71. Does your court have practical experience in monitoring or reducing judicial timeframes? Has it in particular developed one or several specific initiatives in this field? Please specify.
72. What are the effects of this initiative? Please specify.
73. What could be the possible future modifications which might improve the results of this initiative?
74. Does this initiative have the support of the responsible public authorities in your country? If so, please give details.
75. Do you believe this initiative to be usable in other courts in European states?
IV. Concrete proposals from your court as regards optimum and foreseeable timeframes
76. Please, submit your comments or suggestions for a practical implementation, at the court level, of the Framework-Programme: "A new objective for judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe", in particular as regards some (or all) of the following proposals:
k) ensuring the transparency on timeframes for the users (see Line of Action 3: improving the foreseeability of the timeframes)
l) reducing queuing times (see Line of Action 4: defining and monitoring standards for an optimum timeframe for each type of case)
m) ensuring a systematic reasoning of court decisions and ensuring a prompt delivery of decisions to the parties (see Line of Action 9: acting on quality of proceedings)
n) selecting cases according to their complexity (see Line of Action 10: defining priorities in case management)
o) organising trials to reduce waiting time, while paying special attention to victims and witnesses (see Line of Action 11)
p) setting up a procedure to revive a pending case (see Line of Action 12)
q) organisation of the transmission of a case from a non competent court to the competent court (see Line of Action 13: making more flexible the rules on territorial jurisdiction of first instance courts)
r) setting up "contracts of objective" between courts and lawyers (see Line of Action 16: organising the relationships with lawyers)
s) enhancing the responsibility of judicial experts as regards judicial timeframes (see Line of Action 17: improving the monitoring of compliance with the time-limits by judicial experts)
t) involving judicial professions in the efforts towards optimum and foreseeable timeframes (Line of Action 18: defining the modalities for having bailiffs, clerks / Rechtspfleger, notaries and all other professions involved in justice)
77. Please, feel free to comment on any other proposals included in the Framework-Programme.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
Network of Pilot-courts
Submitted by: MArco cachia (cepej co-ordinator)
pROPOSED court (Name): 1st Hall Civil Court No2.
address: Courts of malta,
republic street
Valletta
Malta
Contact person: hon.judge g. caruana-demajo
tel: (+356) 25902280
E-mail: [email protected]
***
DESCRIPTION OF YOUR COURT
30) Please specify if your court is
a) a court of first instance or a higher instance court:
A court of first instance
b) a court of general jurisdiction or a specialised court (please specify):
General civil jurisdiction except for family issues cases
c) Please describe the structure of your court, in particular the number of specialised chambers:
In our country, we have two general courts of civil jurisdiction (one in Malta and one in Gozo) a specialised court dealing with family related issues, and a court of voluntary jurisdiction.
31) What is the average volume and the nature (civil, commercial, administrative, criminal, etc.) of the cases addressed each year in your court?
396 (three hundred ninety-six) civil, commercial and administrative cases. We do not record our cases by nature but by judge to whom the cases are assigned. (source: courts statistics web site)
32) Please describe the composition of the court judicial and non judicial staff
a) Number of judges: 1 (one)
b) If appropriate, number of prosecutors attached to the court: not applicable
c) Number of non judge administrative staff: 6 (six)
If possible, could you categorise between:
§ non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges (case file preparation, assistance during the hearing, keeping the minutes of the meetings, helping to prepare the decisions) such as registrars: 6 (six)
§ staff in charge of different administrative tasks as well as of the management of the courts (human resources management, material and equipment management, financial management, etc):
A centralised administration network that supports the judicial organisation and performs these tasks fully
§ technical staff and staff in charge of maintenance functions: same as above
33) Annual budget of the court (in €):
There is only one budget allocation which includes all courts and supporting networks
Does this amount include salaries? YES – NO
If yes, does it include salaries for the whole staff or for the non judicial staff only?
____________________________________________________________
Please return this form, through the national member of the CEPEJ, by 1 May 2005 to:
Secretariat of the CEPEJ
DG I – Legal Affairs, Council of Europe, F – 67075 Strasbourg
e-mail: [email protected] or fax: + 33 3 88 41 37 43.
The Secretariat will then contact you as regards the attached questionnaire.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
Network of Pilot-courts
QUESTIONNAIRE
I. The situation of the judicial timeframes in your court
78. If appropriate, please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases in civil and administrative matter.
|
Civil cases |
Administrative cases |
Divorce |
Employment dismissal |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
1384 (Year 2004)* |
|||
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
2168(Year 2004)* |
|||
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
7238(Year 2004)* |
|||
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
4973(Year 2004)* |
|||
|
Average length of proceedings (from date of filing the case to the court*) |
* the figures include all cases before the civil courts except family related case s(source: courts statistics web site)
* If you cannot calculate the average length from the date of filing the case to the court, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
Courts statistics are recorded by an age analysis system. The parameters of calculations are from the date of filing to the date when the judgment is handed down
79. If appropriate, criminal cases in courts – please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases and specify definitions of incoming cases, starting and ending point of timeframes and pending cases:
|
Criminal cases |
Robbery cases |
Intentional homicide |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
14906 (Year 2004)* |
||
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
13702 (Year 2004)* |
||
|
Annual number of convicted persons |
Not available |
||
|
Annual number of acquitted persons |
Not available |
||
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
8432 (year 2004)* |
||
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
|||
|
Average length of proceedings (from the date of official charging*) |
* If it is not possible to calculate the average length from the date of official charging, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
80. Do you have a way of analysing queuing time (time in which nothing happens with the case) during court procedures? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
No________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
81. Do you have an internal procedure for evaluating and monitoring lengths of proceedings? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
Not particularly, but an age analysis system was lately introduced
_________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
82. Do you have indicators of performance and targets as regards timeframes of procedures? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
No_________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
II. The relations between your court and the users of justice
83. Does your court have users’ or legal professionals’ surveys to measure public trust and satisfaction with the services delivered by the court? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
No__________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
III. Specific initiatives carried on within your court as regards timeframes of procedure[20]
84. Does your court have practical experience in monitoring or reducing judicial timeframes? Has it in particular developed one or several specific initiatives in this field? Please specify.
85. What are the effects of this initiative? Please specify.
86. What could be the possible future modifications which might improve the results of this initiative?
87. Does this initiative have the support of the responsible public authorities in your country? If so, please give details.
88. Do you believe this initiative to be usable in other courts in European states?
IV. Concrete proposals from your court as regards optimum and foreseeable timeframes
89. Please, submit your comments or suggestions for a practical implementation, at the court level, of the Framework-Programme: "A new objective for judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe", in particular as regards some (or all) of the following proposals:
a) ensuring the transparency on timeframes for the users (see Line of Action 3: improving the foreseeability of the timeframes)
b) reducing queuing times (see Line of Action 4: defining and monitoring standards for an optimum timeframe for each type of case)
c) ensuring a systematic reasoning of court decisions and ensuring a prompt delivery of decisions to the parties (see Line of Action 9: acting on quality of proceedings)
d) selecting cases according to their complexity (see Line of Action 10: defining priorities in case management)
e) organising trials to reduce waiting time, while paying special attention to victims and witnesses (see Line of Action 11)
f) setting up a procedure to revive a pending case (see Line of Action 12)
g) organisation of the transmission of a case from a non competent court to the competent court (see Line of Action 13: making more flexible the rules on territorial jurisdiction of first instance courts)
h) setting up "contracts of objective" between courts and lawyers (see Line of Action 16: organising the relationships with lawyers)
i) enhancing the responsibility of judicial experts as regards judicial timeframes (see Line of Action 17: improving the monitoring of compliance with the time-limits by judicial experts)
j) involving judicial professions in the efforts towards optimum and foreseeable timeframes (Line of Action 18: defining the modalities for having bailiffs, clerks / Rechtspfleger, notaries and all other professions involved in justice)
90. Please, feel free to comment on any other proposals included in the Framework-Programme.
Commission EUROPENNE POUR L'EFFICACITE DE LA JUStice
(CEPEJ)
Réseau des tribunaux-référents
PROPOSE PAR: ______________________________
(nom)
TRIBUNAL PROPOSE (NOm): Tribunal of the Rascani Sector (Chisinau)
adressE: ______________________________
______________________________
personNE DE CONTACT: Victor micu
tel: + 373 22 445317
E-mail: ______________________________
***
DESCRIPTION DE VOTRE TRIBUNAL
Veuillez indiquer si votre tribunal est
un tribunal de première instance ou d'une instance supérieure:
un tribunal de droit commun ou spécialisé (veuillez préciser):
Veuillez décrire la structure de votre tribunal, notamment le nombre de chambres et leur spécialisation:
Voir Annexe No 1
____________________________________________________________
Quels sont le volume moyen et la nature (civile, commerciale, administrative, pénale, etc.) des affaires traitées chaque année dans votre tribunal?
Civile – 2986 / par annee / conclues
Penale – 855 /.par annee / conclues
Administrative – 5865 / par annee
Veuillez décrire la composition du personnel judiciaire et non judiciaire du tribunal
Nombre de juges: 17 + 1 juge d’instruction
Le cas échéant, nombre de procureurs près votre tribunal: -
Nombre de personnel administratif non juge: 32
Si possible, veuillez distinguer entre:
§ le personnel non juge dont la tâche est d'assister le juge (préparation des dossiers, assistance pendant les audiences, rédaction des minutes des réunions, assistance dans la préparation de la décision), tels que les greffiers: 26
§ le personnel en charge des différentes tâches administratives et de gestion du tribunal (ressources humaines, gestion du matériel et des équipements, gestion financière, etc): 15
§ le personnel technique et de maintenance: 9
Budget annuel du tribunal (en €):1236,700 mdg /= 74,951 euro
Ce montant inclut-il les salaires? OUI - NON
Si oui, inclut-il les salaires de tout le personnel ou du seul personnel non juge?
MOLDOVA - PART II: QUESTIONNAIRE – ELECTRONIC COPY REQUESTED
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
Network of Pilot-courts
(electronic copy requested)
Submitted by:
(name)
pROPOSED court (Name): Rechtbank Court Arnhem
address: ______________________________
______________________________
Contact person: ______________________________
tel: ______________________________
E-mail: ______________________________
***
DESCRIPTION OF YOUR COURT
Please specify if your court is
a court of first instance or a higher instance court:
a court of general jurisdiction or a specialised court (please specify):
Please describe the structure of your court, in particular the number of specialised chambers:
The Court is divided in 5 divisions with a subdivision in 20 specified teams ____________________________________________________________
What is the average volume and the nature (civil, commercial, administrative, criminal, etc.) of the cases addressed each year in your court?
Civil and Commercial - 57,000
Administration – 5,700
Criminal 30,000
Family Law 18,000
Tax Law 2,000
Please describe the composition of the court judicial and non judicial staff
Number of judges: 100
If appropriate, number of prosecutors attached to the court: 28
Number of non judge administrative staff: 350
If possible, could you categorise between:
§ non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges (case file preparation, assistance during the hearing, keeping the minutes of the meetings, helping to prepare the decisions) such as registrars: 125
§ staff in charge of different administrative tasks as well as of the management of the courts (human resources management, material and equipment management, financial management, etc): 175
§ technical staff and staff in charge of maintenance functions: 50
Annual budget of the court (in €): 30 million
Does this amount include salaries? YES – NO
If yes, does it include salaries for the whole staff or for the non judicial staff only?
The whole staff
The Netherlands – PART II Questionnaire – electronic copy requested
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
Network of Pilot-courts
Member state: ______________________________
Submitted by: Sissel Endresen_____________________________
Head of judicial department, National court administration
(name)
______________________________
pROPOSED court (Name): (a) Frostating Lagmannsrett
address: Munkegata 20
Tinghuset,
N-7004 Trondheim
_Norway_______________________
______________________________
Contact person: court president
olaf jakhelln________________
tel: ____0047 73 54 24 73________
E-mail: [email protected]
DESCRIPTION OF YOUR COURT
- Please specify if your court is
o a court of first instance or a higher instance court:
Court of appeal
o a court of general jurisdiction or a specialised court (please specify):
General jurisdiction___________________________________
o Please describe the structure of your court, in particular the number of specialised chambers:
The court is not divided in chambers, but there are a certain specialization concerning the handling of appraisement cases.
In all cases the court is set with a number of tree judges, but the persons involved varies from case to case.
- What are the average volume and the nature (civil, commercial, administrative, criminal, etc.) of the cases addressed each year in your court?
820 criminal cases (130 with hearings)___________________________
355 civil cases (160 with hearings)________________________________
- Please describe the composition of the court judicial and non judicial staff
o Number of judges: ___17_____
o If appropriate, number of prosecutors attached to the court: __-_______
o Number of non judge administrative staff: ___18_____
If possible, could you categorise between:
- non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges (case file preparation, assistance during the hearing, keeping the minutes of the meetings, helping to prepare the decisions) such as registrars: ____13____
- staff in charge of different administrative tasks as well as of the management of the courts (human resources management, material and equipment management, financial management, etc): ___4______
- technical staff and staff in charge of maintenance functions: ___1______
- Annual budget of the court (in €): 2.750.000 €__________________
Does this amount include salaries? YES – NO
If yes, does it include salaries for the whole staff or for the non judicial staff only?
Salaries for the whole staff are included
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
Network of Pilot-courts
NORWAY : PART II: QUESTIONNAIRE (a) Frostating Lagmannsrett
I. The situation of the judicial timeframes in your court
- If appropriate, please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases in civil and administrative matter.
|
Civil cases |
Administrative cases |
Divorce |
Employment dismissal |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
355 |
- |
0 |
10 |
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
210 |
- |
0 |
7 |
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
115 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Average length of proceedings (from date of filing the case to the court*) |
126 |
- |
- |
* If you cannot calculate the average length from the date of filing the case to the court, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
- If appropriate, criminal cases in courts – please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases and specify definitions of incoming cases, starting and ending point of timeframes and pending cases:
|
Criminal cases |
Robbery cases |
Intentional homicide |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
590 |
? |
4 |
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
720 |
3 |
4 |
|
Annual number of convicted persons |
130 (Both convicted and acquitted) |
? |
? |
|
Annual number of acquitted persons |
As above |
? |
? |
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
45 |
? |
? |
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Average length of proceedings (from the date of official charging*) |
100 |
? |
? |
* If it is not possible to calculate the average length from the date of official charging, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
- Do you have a way of analysing queuing time (time in which nothing happens with the case) during court procedures? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
Before the actual beginning of the proceedings, we set a fixed date of the appeal hearing. In criminal cases the question of allowing the appeal and interlocutory appeals are given priority and will be dealt with in just a few days time. There are therefore no queuing time in these matters.
The case handling time is monitored by the Administration’s in relation to the individual judge`s portfolio each month.
____________________________________________________________
- Do you have an internal procedure for evaluating and monitoring lengths of proceedings? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
As mentioned above are the judges’ portfolios surveyed every month. The lengths of proceedings are monitored and evaluated with statistical measures as a routine, at least every third month.
____________________________________________________________
- Do you have indicators of performance and targets as regards timeframes of procedures? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
Average length of proceedings proposed by the Ministry of Justice with consent from the Norwegian parliament (Stortinget):
Civil appellate cases: 6 month - from the case is put before the appeal court to judgement is delivered.
Criminal appellate cases: 3 month - from the case is put before the appeal court to judgement is delivered.
Statutory maximum timeframes for certain type of cases:
a) When the accused remains in custody: 8 weeks from the appeal is allowed main appellate, to the hearing starts.
b) When the accused was under the age of 18 when the crime was committed: from the appeal is allowed to main appellate hearing starts.
II. The relations between your court and the users of justice
- Does your court have users’ or legal professionals’ surveys to measure public trust and satisfaction with the services delivered by the court? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
We have on regular basis meetings with the prosecution and the defence council in our region. The main issue in these meetings are matters of sufficient importance for efficiency, confidence and satisfaction.
There are no available statistics concerning this issue.
____________________________________________________________
III. Specific initiatives carried on within your court as regards timeframes of procedure[21]
- Does your court have practical experience in monitoring or reducing judicial timeframes? Has it in particular developed one or several specific initiatives in this field? Please specify.
Civil cases:
About 15 years ago, a special initiative was taken within the court. Old routines were re-examined, and we asked critical questions about many steps in the case preparation routines. Much harked back to the interwar years, when the last major procedural reform was carried through. We asked what was necessary, and removed and consolidated a number of procedural steps. Although it might seem as if the various steps were presupposed by the law, in fact they were neither statute nor necessary.
Formerly we used to start by sending a form verifying that the appeal case had been received and approved for consideration. Then we sent a form to the appellant’s counsel, stating the deadline for new submissions. Then a similar form to the appeal defendant’s counsel, etc. These forms are now omitted, and we sent a simultaneous letter to both counsel. The letter states the deadlines for new submissions, evidential lists, and input on time and place for the appeal proceeding, whether associated judges would be required, etc. Also – and this is important – they were asked if a given number of days, ”x”, were sufficient for the hearing, and whether location ”y” is suitable.
Shortly after receipt of the letter by both counsels, they receive a telephone call from our secretarial service, and telephonic agreement is reached for when and how the appeal hearing will be held, and how many days to reserve for it. This is confirmed in writing from this office as a matter of course.
The key thing here is that: the time and place of the appeal hearing is nailed down right at the start of the case preparations. As the preparations commence, it is clear to everyone when the matter will come up. This creates fixed time frames for the preparatory work, and leads automatically to faster clerking.
A week or two before the appeal hearing the judge who will administer the appeal hearing contacts the counsel directly, usually be email. He orders them to prepare a detailed joint timetable for the appeal hearing, stating when each witness will be called, etc. He also orders them to bring along a concentrated arguments pleading (brief arguments only, no argumentation), for presentation at the appeal hearing. This alone is a real time-saver. It forces the counsels to talk to each other and agree on the practical arrangements. That induces them to highlight their points, and irrelevant and immaterial issues are jettisoned. It also forces each counsel to really analyse what he essentially wants to argue. That produces a focus on the issues. The hearing is more stringent, and therefore also shorter.
In the evolution of our modern routines we have had innumerable internal discussions, with both judges and court officials. We have all gone off to internal seminars with a high level of social shoulder-rubbing, and have succeeded in building a vibrant esprit de corps within the court. In this sense too, it is vital to reduce the divide between judges and officials – who we now call case handlers. We all work towards a shared goal – and in practice there is no clear line between the work done by the judge and by the handler.
Initially we spent 2-3 tough, demanding and burdensome years eating into the backlog. We succeeded since we all understood that this was a transition to a better system, and because we all accepted the status and recognised that we faced a common task that would improve everyone’s lot.
During development of our modern routines we also enjoyed close contacts with attorneys in the region through the Bar Association. Discussion meeting were held with lawyers, and with their help we established a few clerking rules for our court, rules which the Bar Association was fully behind. This meant that counsel understand and accept the new routines.
Criminal cases:
The High Court receives the appeals sparked by the District Court’s criminal judgements. The more serious cases qualify for appeal proceedings, whilst the less serious go through a preliminary vetting process by three judges. If all three agree that the appeal clearly will not succeed, then they can deny referral to an appeal hearing. As a result the District Court’s judgement is final.
So that this system is efficient, the ”vetting” must happen almost immediately. Therefore we have arranged things so that there is always a team of three judges ready to consider an appeal when it arrives. Most cases are therefore ”vetted” in the course of 2-3 days.
At the same time as we send a notice to the parties that a case has been referred to appeal, our secretarial service takes a quick look at the case and contacts the Prosecution Service, defence counsel, and – if actual - the counsel for the aggrieved party, by phone, to set a date, time and expected duration of the appeal hearing. This is done in consultation with the competent preparing judge, but in fact in most cases it turns out that the secretarial service can make the arrangements without consulting with the judge.
By this means the date of the appeal hearing can be set only days after the vetting process, and even before the case preparation has been initiated. Together with our written confirmation of time and place, we send closing dates for the parties to present their evidence lists, petitions for nomination of expert witnesses, etc. The judge – see next paragraph – checks and signs these letters.
We have a Lead Judge who monitors the processing of criminal cases. He 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. Cases do not lie fallow, therefore.
Thus the case preparations commence immediately and the parties know what they have to adhere to.
This means that it is also a relatively simple matter to meet the statutory maximum dates introduced a few years back for minors and custodial offenders (see above, point 5). Both the Prosecution Service and defence counsel understand that the requirement for fast-tracking has been significantly tightened up in recent years. The Prosecution Service must also sometimes accept that a new District Attorney must step in. And likewise the defendant must sometimes accept that a different Public Defender, not his first choice, will represent him.
If the appeal is a major issue, expected to take five or more days, then we often summon the prosecutors to (informal) case preparatory conferences. The issues are often the scope of the evidence presentation, what the parties find incontrovertible, how certain evidence should or will be presented (direct witness testimony or telephone interview or reading aloud a statement, etc), the need to appoint expert witnesses including their mandate and time frame, what compensation claims should be considered in company with the criminal case, how a reasonable and realistic timing schedule will appear, etc. We have excellent results with such meetings. They regularly lead to a significant compression of the appeal hearing. In that way potential difficulties can often be nipped in the bud; others become clearer and more easily dealt with.
In recent years we have set up regular meetings with the Prosecution Service and public defenders in our region. Here we air various issues, and the efficiency issue is always reoccurring. This has led to our prosecutors understanding the modern standards of efficiency, and we understand each other better. It has also led to an improved understanding of the value of practical cooperation between prosecutor and defence counsel in the preparation of the case, a sort of cooperation that in earlier times was almost considered inappropriate.
- What are the effects of this initiative? Please specify.
See point 7. It has meant that our court now adheres to the time frames estimated, and we are up to date, and almost all appeal cases in our system are already scheduled (meaning that the time and place of the appeal hearing has been set).
- What could be the possible future modifications, which might improve the results of this initiative?
- Does this initiative have the support of the responsible public authorities in your country? If so, please give details.
Yes, both the Court Administration and the Ministry of Justice have observed the developments with interest.
Civil cases:
In spring 2005 a new Act of Civil Procedure has been passed. It builds on the same ideas that have guided our modernisation work.
Criminal cases:
The Ministry of Justice organised last autumn a major seminar for efficiencies in the criminal justice system. There, many of our ideas were adopted and received a general recommendation. The Courts Administration via its Competence Panel for Judges has more or less simultaneously instituted an analysis project which is now working on a fresh report on ”Active case management and case resolution in criminal cases”, based on the same ideas.
- Do you believe this initiative to be usable in other courts in European states?
Yes, in my view it should not be too difficult to achieve:
1. Almost immediate determination of time and place for main hearing/ appeal hearing,
2. Almost immediate determination of time frame for how long main hearing/ appeal hearing will take,
3. So as thereafter to commence case preparations within the frameworks thereby established.
IV. Concrete proposals from your court as regards optimum and foreseeable timeframes
- Please, submit your comments or suggestions for a practical implementation, at the court level, of the Framework-Programme: "A new objective for judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe", in particular as regards some (or all) of the following proposals:
o ensuring the transparency on timeframes for the users (see Line of Action 3: improving the foreseeability of the timeframes)
As mentioned above.
o reducing queuing times (see Line of Action 4: defining and monitoring standards for an optimum timeframe for each type of case)
As mentioned above.
o ensuring a systematic reasoning of court decisions and ensuring a prompt delivery of decisions to the parties (see Line of Action 9: acting on quality of proceedings)
Systematic approach in judgements:
We have understood that there are different traditions and requirements for the format of judicial decisions in different countries. In our country, we have worked on compressing the judgements, making them shorter. A general judgement here can run over 10-12 typed pages. If it is more than 14, then it is long. Our experience is that judgements are improved if they are shortened. That forces the discussion to address the key points, and it becomes clearer to see the key points, how the arguments were presented, and how the judge reasoned his conclusion.
Our judgements start with a line indicating the legal theme of the case. (This forces the judge to crystallise in his own mind, what the issue is really about, and that helps the judgement revolve more succinctly around the issue at hand.) Then follows a brief account of the background for the case, and a section on the procedural history, which is only a summary report. The next section reiterates the parties’ arguments and precise claims. Here we are helped by the argument sheets that the counsel must present, see point 7 above. Then the court presents its own deliberations with assessments and positions, and finally the court’s conclusion.
In early days we sometimes found that the case was repeated in whole or in part as many as four times in the same judgement – first in the briefing on the case background, then in the parties’ arguments, then in long extracts about the case seen from each party’s side, and then – finally – the whole story once more seen from the court’s point of view. We have been keen to avoid repetitions, and try now to tell the story just once. Sometimes it makes sense to include it with the court’s own deliberations, sometimes by way of introduction. It depends on the nature of the case.
To date we have not found it useful to try a more schematic format for our judgements. We see the value of having different judges being different, and will respect these differences even in the format of their judgement premises. That does no necessarily prevent us from advocating a more concentrated presentation without unnecessary repetitions.
Quick pronouncement:
We have worked to change our attitudes when it comes to the time taken to write a judgement, and the grounds that might be acceptable for taking a longer time. Results are now coming in.
We have introduced the routine, when the appeal hearing is concluded, to inform the parties when they can expect the judgement to be pronounced, when it will be immediately communicated to the counsel. If this proves to be untenable, then we have to notify the counsel of the delay, and also provide a new date for pronouncement.
o selecting cases according to their complexity (see Line of Action 10: defining priorities in case management)
As long as a big backlog remains, a selection has to be made. Get done with the simple cases.
Cases are basically assigned randomly, on a rota system among the judges. Nevertheless we can hand-pick judges for special cases, e.g those which are especially difficult or extensive, or with special media appeal.
o organising trials to reduce waiting time, while paying special attention to victims and witnesses (see Line of Action 11)
It is now many years since we had to summon all witnesses to be present when the case started.
Civil cases:
In civil cases normally the counsel will call his or her witnesses, and says when they will appear. The counsels therefore have to weigh the time of appearance, but will find good help in the schedules they were required to draw up with the opposing counsel. Occasionally the court is forced to wait because proceedings move along faster than expected, but this is not a problem.
Criminal cases:
In criminal cases it is the Prosecution Service which calls the witnesses and sets the attendance times. Only if there is reason to suppose that the witness may abscond will they be ordered to attend at the opening of the case. This almost never happens.
Victims are given special attention. They will often have a specially appointed assistant counsel, who looks after the practicalities of attendance, in consultation with the Prosecution Service and court.
o setting up a procedure to revive a pending case (see Line of Action 12)
If enquiries or complaints come in because a case is proceeding too slowly, these go to the Senior judge president, who takes the necessary steps. The Senior judge president is free to move the case to another judge.
To avoid such situations, as we have already mentioned, a regular (monthly) review of backlogged cases is held. A Lead Judge reviews the backlog list with each individual judge. He or she takes the necessary steps and reports to the Senior judge president.
o organisation of the transmission of a case from a non competent court to the competent court (see Line of Action 13: making more flexible the rules on territorial jurisdiction of first instance courts)
In Norway parties are permitted to choose their preferred legal venue in most civil cases, provided they can agree. (The most important exception is cases to establish property boundaries, etc.)
When in our appeal court we receive a case that is destined for another venue, we usually send it on to the proper jurisdiction, if it is clear where this is. A copy of the transfer is sent to the submitting party at the same time. It is important to have routines that quickly identify if the case has been wrongly sent. First of all this job lies with the judge who is on duty to monitor incoming post and new cases.
It sometimes happens that a court is extraordinarily burdened by cases. In Norway this situation is resolved by appointing sitting judges or extraordinary judges, not by moving the case to a neighbouring jurisdiction. I believe this system works satisfactorily in our country.
Not unusually situations may arise which are virtually disqualifying for all judges in a court. For such cases we have a practical rule that allows us to send the case to a parallel court. The parties are always asked their opinion first. They never object. The chief justice of the neighbouring court is asked informally. With his consent, the case is sent over. This is a very useful rule, which does not require an elaborate bureaucracy. Neighbouring courts are invariably gracious and helpful. They realise that mutual assistance is the name of the game.
o setting up "contracts of objective" between courts and lawyers (see Line of Action 16: organising the relationships with lawyers)
This makes a lot of sense. Above we discuss (in III.7) how we have joined together with attorneys in a binding cooperation. The guidelines for case handling have been set up in writing and are signed by the regional Bar Association and our court. It is very valuable that these guidelines arise as the result of common discussions and consensus.
o enhancing the responsibility of judicial experts as regards judicial timeframes (see Line of Action 17: improving the monitoring of compliance with the time-limits by judicial experts)
We do not appoint expert witnesses except with the simultaneous stipulation of clear time limits for when the investigation/ statement must be ready by. In Norway we have a statutory Forensic Medicine Commission whose job is to advise the courts and expert witnesses in forensic issues in criminal cases. All forensic statements in such cases must be sent to the Commission before disclosure in a court. The Commission checks that the work performed is within a good professional framework. This greatly assists the court. The Commission is also concerned that these statements should not take excessive time.
However, it is the courts that must monitor the stated deadlines. This is no problem, provided each judge recognises his role. Effective insistence on deadlines for prosecutors, defenders, experts and others is quickly sensed in the various corridors, and tends to deter future timing lapses.
o involving judicial professions in the efforts towards optimum and foreseeable timeframes (Line of Action 18: defining the modalities for having bailiffs, clerks / Rechtspfleger, notaries and all other professions involved in justice)
The major thing here is to develop a good team spirit, a joint attitude to tackling the job, a shared feeling of responsibility to get the matters to go seamlessly, including a determination that ”the show must go on”.
For example we have always worked to relatively short schedules for our officials, at the same time, as it is never difficult to get a full effort after office hours when things get hectic.
As mentioned above, we also have to work to soften the divide between judges and other court officials.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
Network of Pilot-courts
Member state: Norway
Submitted by: Sissel Endresen,
Head of Judicial Department,
National Court Administration
pROPOSED court (Name): (b) Midhordland Tingrett (District court)
address: PO box 7416, n-7416 Bergen
Contact person: Mette Cecilie greve, court president
tel: 0047 55 23 73 30_
E-mail: [email protected]
***
DESCRIPTION OF YOUR COURT
Please specify if your court is
a court of first instance or a higher instance court:
The court is a first instance court
a court of general jurisdiction or a specialised court (please specify):
Midhordland tingrett is a court of general jurisdiction
Please describe the structure of your court, in particular the number of specialised chambers:
There are no specialised chambers in Midhordland tingrett
What are the average volume and the nature (civil, commercial, administrative, criminal, etc.) of the cases addressed each year in your court?
The average annual volume of the cases for the last years are as follows:
Civil cases: 225
Criminal cases: 570
Probate and bankruptcy cases: 105
Enforcement cases: 125
We also judicially registrate around 20500 documents yearly.
Please describe the composition of the court judicial and non judicial staff
Number of judges: There are 5 judges inclusive 2 deputy judges
If appropriate, number of prosecutors attached to the court: none.
Number of non judge administrative staff: 10
If possible, could you categorise between:
§ non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges (case file preparation, assistance during the hearing, keeping the minutes of the meetings, helping to prepare the decisions) such as registrars: 5
§ staff in charge of different administrative tasks as well as of the management of the courts (human resources management, material and equipment management, financial management, etc): 5, included 3 persons in charge of Judicial registration.
§ technical staff and staff in charge of maintenance functions: none
Annual budget of the court (in €): 775843,44.
Does this amount include salaries? YES – NO
If yes, does it include salaries for the whole staff or for the non-judicial staff only?
The annual budget includes salaries for the whole staff.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
Network of Pilot-courts
QUESTIONNAIRE (b) Midhordland Tingrett (District court)
I. The situation of the judicial timeframes in your court
- If appropriate, please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases in civil and administrative matter.
|
Civil cases |
Administrative cases |
Divorce |
Employment dismissal |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
385 |
- |
0 |
|
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
370 |
- |
0 |
|
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
41 |
- |
0 |
|
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
0 |
- |
0 |
|
|
Average length of proceedings (from date of filing the case to the court*) |
158 days |
- |
- |
* If you cannot calculate the average length from the date of filing the case to the court, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
- If appropriate, criminal cases in courts – please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases and specify definitions of incoming cases, starting and ending point of timeframes and pending cases:
|
Criminal cases |
Robbery cases |
Intentional homicide |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
468 |
||
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
545 |
||
|
Annual number of convicted persons |
|||
|
Annual number of acquitted persons |
|||
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
19 |
||
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
|||
|
Average length of proceedings (from the date of official charging*) |
93 days |
* If it is not possible to calculate the average length from the date of official charging, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
- Do you have a way of analysing queuing time (time in which nothing happens with the case) during court procedures? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
Civil cases:
The main hearing is scheduled immediately the Reply is received, and the scheduling is done by case handlers in the Judicial Department. The Administration is notified if the hearing cannot be scheduled within the target figures for processing times which the court has stipulated.
Criminal cases:
Criminal cases are prepared by the Chief judge, and scheduled after the matter comes in. The Chief judge is notified also in this case if the target figures cannot be met for the individual case.
The case handling time is monitored by Administration in relation to the individual judges each month.
- Do you have an internal procedure for evaluating and monitoring lengths of proceedings? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
The Chief judge of the district court has monthly inspections and she also extracts statistical reports on a monthly basis for the court’s total processing hours.
- Do you have indicators of performance and targets as regards timeframes of procedures? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
Average length of proceedings proposed by the Ministry of Justice with consent from the Norwegian parliament (Stortinget):
Civil cases: 6 month - from the case are put before the court to judgement is delivered.
Criminal cases: 3 month - from the case are put before the court to judgement is delivered.
Statutory maximum timeframes for certain type of cases:
When the accused remains in custody: 6 weeks from the matter comes in to main hearing starts.
When the accused was under the age of 18 when the crime was committed: 6 weeks from the matter comes in to main appellate hearing starts.
II. The relations between your court and the users of justice
- Does your court have users’ or legal professionals’ surveys to measure public trust and satisfaction with the services delivered by the court? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
The Court Administration holds regular meetings with the Prosecution Service, attorneys and defenders in the court district. The Administration has regular contact with the public defenders and other attorneys who often litigate in court. These are invited to give feedback on judges’ conduct, in particularly as regards deputy judges’ conduct in court.
In autumn 2004/spring 2005 the Chief judge took part in a management training program where part of the program was to contact users of the court and explore their level of satisfaction with the court.
This survey proved very useful and will therefore be done again also after the conclusion of the management training.
III. Specific initiatives carried on within your court as regards timeframes of procedure[22]
- Does your court have practical experience in monitoring or reducing judicial timeframes? Has it in particular developed one or several specific initiatives in this field? Please specify.
The number of arriving cases in all case categories increased significantly in the late 1990s until 2003. As a result the court became embroiled in an unacceptably long processing time, in particular for criminal cases. In the last two years we have implemented a range of measures, which have almost halved the processing time spent on criminal cases. The processing time for civil cases has also been reduced to a sensible level. These measures are described below.
Civil Cases:
Cases under the Children Act:
The Midhordland District Court has, since 2001, considered cases under the Children Act, in a project following a model devised by a first instance court in Norway. After the Summons arrives and the Reply is received, an immediate date is set in consultation with the parties for a preparatory meeting with the parties and their attorneys present. The expert witness (psychologist) who attends the preparatory meeting is nominated for the main hearing. The judge and expert witness then negotiate between the parties, and a legal settlement was achieved in more than 80 per cent of cases.
Following the model from this project, the Children Act was amended effective 1st April 2004, so that this procedure is now a procedure used by very many first instance courts in Norway today. The consequences to the Midhordland District Court were far shorter handling times in such cases, and much less time spent by the court on each such case. This has all changed since the law came into force, since the Act prescribes three preparatory meetings in each case. This alteration has meant that the processing time in such cases has increased with the introduction of the new law.
Judicial mediation:
Midhordland District Court has, since 1st January 2003, taken part in a trial project in Norwegian courts for Judicial Mediation in civil cases. In the course of a year or two, judicial mediation will be introduced in all courts in Norway. Apart from having a number of advantages for the parties concerned, judicial mediation means also that the courts can schedule cases faster, and that less time is spent on each case. This is both because time-consuming main hearings are avoided, and because the judge need write no judgement in the case.
In summer 2003, Midhordland District Court introduced a change in the routines in civil cases, so that the offer of judicial mediation is sent to the parties in ALL civil matters, except those clearly not suitable for this remedy. The judges are also urged to telephone the attorneys if one or both of the parties rejects the offer. As a result a large share of civil cases in the court are now subject to judicial mediation, and the settlement rate is very high. Altogether this has led to shorter processing times for civil cases, and to the courts releasing capacity to deal with criminal cases faster.
In autumn 2003 the Chief judge informed all local newspapers of the benefits of judicial mediation. This initiative has shown itself significant for parties’ interest in pursuing a judicial mediation route.
General measures:
In 2004 the court introduced routines where large parts of the case preparations in civil cases are done electronically, which also helps reduce the processing times. In autumn 2005 Midhordland District Court will also introduce routines initiated by the Frostating High Court in regard to scheduling of main hearings and compact argument pleadings. See also the Frostating High Court’s account of this.
Criminal cases:
The Chief judge, since December 2004, has been responsible for case processing of all criminal cases. This means generally that less time is reserved for the main hearing and writing of judgement.
We now schedule several criminal cases in a day if this seems defensible, and prosecutors must swap cases among themselves if this means we can schedule a case earlier than otherwise.
As a step in the case preparations the Chief Administrator ensures that each criminal case is dealt with within the targets, which have been set for case handling times.
From September 2005 the court will take part in a trial project under the auspices of a project implemented by the Court Administration. This project means that the court will use a series of recommended actions which should produce shorter handling times and more efficient routing of criminal cases through the courts. This project also provides for a greater coordination between prosecutors in the chain of criminal cases. The project will be implemented in close dialogue with the local Prosecution Service and the regular defenders. Generally it can be said that the project provides for significantly greater judges’ control of criminal cases, both during case preparation and during the holding of the main hearing (trial).
Summarily we can mention a few key measures:
a) Dedicated judges on case preparation.
b) Increased requirements for evidence sheet.
c) Critical review of prosecutor’s time estimate for trial and replacement of prosecutor if this improves case timing.
d) Holding of several criminal cases per day.
e) Pre-scheduling of deadline cases and time-consuming cases.
f) Greater use of case preparatory meetings.
g) Greater communication between prosecutor and defender prior to trial.
h) Range of measures to effectuate implementation of trial.
i) Range of measures to increase share of confessional cases.
j) Greater coordination with others involved.
In Midhordland District Court we have already introduced some of these measures, but the others will be implemented in the trial project, which starts up this autumn. The project will be evaluated internally and externally after about a year of trails.
- What are the effects of this initiative? Please specify.
See above. The case handling time for all types of cases is now very satisfactory to the court.
- What could be the possible future modifications which might improve the results of this initiative?
- Does this initiative have the support of the responsible public authorities in your country? If so, please give details.
Yes. We find that the Court Administration is involved in the initiatives that are taken in the court. Otherwise we refer to the statements made by Frostating High Court regarding this item.
- Do you believe this initiative to be usable in other courts in European states?
Yes.
IV. Concrete proposals from your court as regards optimum and foreseeable timeframes
- Please, submit your comments or suggestions for a practical implementation, at the court level, of the Framework-Programme: "A new objective for judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe", in particular as regards some (or all) of the following proposals:
ensuring the transparency on timeframes for the users (see Line of Action 3: improving the foreseeability of the timeframes)
reducing queuing times (see Line of Action 4: defining and monitoring standards for an optimum timeframe for each type of case)
ensuring a systematic reasoning of court decisions and ensuring a prompt delivery of decisions to the parties (see Line of Action 9: acting on quality of proceedings)
The court has devoted much effort to creating targets for the legal decisions, and particularly in the case of criminal cases. This eases the judge’s work of writing decisions, and ensures that decisions are built on a unified model.
Continuous work is done in the court to build awareness and motivate judges to write brief and precise judgements.
Since very many civil cases go through judicial mediation, relatively few civil judgements are written in the court. One consequence of this is that fewer cases from the court ever reach the High Court.
selecting cases according to their complexity (see Line of Action 10: defining priorities in case management)
Simple cases that can be scheduled quickly get some degree of priority. We also give priority to cases which the legislator has promoted. Cases which will go to judicial mediation are also given priority, since their time expenditure is minimal, and the same goes for cases under the Children Act.
A new Civil Procedures Act, which most likely will become effective on 1st January 2007, will provide for a small claims process where cases involving small amounts are dealt with more summarily and therefore quicker.
organising trials to reduce waiting time, while paying special attention to victims and witnesses (see Line of Action 11)
The Prosecution Service is bound to call witnesses according to a prepared time schedule.
In civil cases the attorneys will also be required to do the same since they are required to prepare a detailed timing schedule.
Midhordland District Court has initiated cooperation with other courts sitting in the same courthouse. This cooperation aims to establish a witness support mechanism after the fashion of the Danish system.
setting up a procedure to revive a pending case (see Line of Action 12)
In Norway a complaints system applies where parties, attorneys and others can complain about a judge to the Supervisory Council for Judges. A number of complaints have been founded precisely on tardy case processing. The Supervisory Council has stipulated that the Court Administration has a direct responsibility to see that case handling is satisfactory, including that it does not take too long.
In Midhordland District Court more informal complaints will be heard by the Chief judge, but regular monitoring of each judge means that the issue seldom arises.
organisation of the transmission of a case from a non competent court to the competent court (see Line of Action 13: making more flexible the rules on territorial jurisdiction of first instance courts)
Whenever the parties can agree, in most civil cases they can choose the legal venue in Norway.
Wrongly addressed cases are sent immediately to the competent court with a note to the party concerned. See also the account provided by the Frostating High Court.
setting up "contracts of objective" between courts and lawyers (see Line of Action 16: organising the relationships with lawyers)
Although the court does not have formal contracts with attorneys, extensive cooperation and a mutual understanding of what routines give best target achievement for the court and users of the court do exist.
enhancing the responsibility of judicial experts as regards judicial timeframes (see Line of Action 17: improving the monitoring of compliance with the time-limits by judicial experts)
Time limits are always set for the court-appointed expert witness, and the court has its own routines for monitoring these deadlines. The Forensic Medicine Commission in Norway in a circular has stated that the time limit for presenting an expert opinion should be 45 days. See also the account from the Frostating High Court.
involving judicial professions in the efforts towards optimum and foreseeable timeframes (Line of Action 18: defining the modalities for having bailiffs, clerks / Rechtspfleger, notaries and all other professions involved in justice)
The court holds regular gatherings of all personnel to discuss new measures or change existing measures, which may result in more efficient court operation. We make extensive use of legal students who participate in the court as court witnesses and minute’s keepers. This means greater efficiency for the court since our processing clerks get much more time to do their processing work.
- Please, feel free to comment on any other proposals included in the Framework-Programme.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
Network of Pilot-courts
Submitted by: Joao Arsenio de Oliveira
(in consultation with the High Council of Judiciary
(name)
pROPOSED court (Name): Tribunal Judicial de Mafra
address: ______________________________
______________________________
Contact person: ______________________________
tel: ______________________________
E-mail: ______________________________
***
DESCRIPTION OF YOUR COURT
Please specify if your court is
a court of first instance or a higher instance court:
a court of general jurisdiction or a specialised court (please specify):
Please describe the structure of your court, in particular the number of specialised chambers:
The court has two non-specialised divisions.
What is the average volume and the nature (civil, commercial, administrative, criminal, etc.) of the cases addressed each year in your court?
CIVIL = 4024
FAMILY = 991
CRIMINAL = 1783
Please describe the composition of the court judicial and non judicial staff
Number of judges: 2
If appropriate, number of prosecutors attached to the court: 3
Number of non judge administrative staff: 25
If possible, could you categorise between:
§ non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges (case file preparation, assistance during the hearing, keeping the minutes of the meetings, helping to prepare the decisions) such as registrars: 0
§ staff in charge of different administrative tasks as well as of the management of the courts (human resources management, material and equipment management, financial management, etc): 23
§ technical staff and staff in charge of maintenance functions: 2
Annual budget of the court (in €): 114, 448
Does this amount include salaries? YES – NO
COMMISSION EUROPÉENNE POUR L’EFFICACITE DE LA JUSTICE (CEPEJ)
Réseau des tribunaux référents
PROPOSÉ PAR: Le Conseil Supérieur de la Magistrature
TRIBUNAL PROPOSÉ: Le Tribunal de Droit Commun
ADRESSE: Boulevard Eroilor, Pitesti, département
d’Arges
PERSONNE DE CONTACT: CIORASCU FLORINITA
TEL: 0248.22.40.19
E-MAIL: [email protected];[email protected];site:www.justitie-ag.ro
DESCRIPTION DE VOTRE TRIBUNAL
· Veuillez indiquer si votre tribunal est
1) un tribunal de première instance ou d’une instance supérieure:
Notre Tribunal est une instance supérieure
2) un tribunal de droit commun ou spécialisé (veuillez préciser):
Notre Tribunal est une instance de droit commun
3) Veuillez décrire la structure de votre tribunal, notamment le nombre de chambres et leur spécialisation:
Notre Tribunal a deux chambres: une civile et une pénale
Dans la chambre civile il y a des complets spécialises: pour mineurs et famille, pour le droit de travail, pour contentieux administratif et fiscal
· Quels sont le volume moyen et la nature (civile, commerciale, administrative, pénale etc) des affaires traitées chaque année dans votre tribunal?
Le volume moyen des causes traitées par notre instance est de 6000 causes civiles, 1000 causes administratives et 3000 causes pénales.
Total: 10.000 causes
· Veuillez décrire la composition du personnel judiciaire et non judiciaire du tribunal
· Nombre de juges: 31
· Le cas échéant, nombre de procureurs près votre tribunal: 6
· Nombre de personnel administratif non juge: 43
Si possible, veuillez distinguer entre:
■le personnel non juge dont la tâche este d’ assister le juge (préparation des dossiers, assistance pendant les audiences, rédaction des minutes des réunions, assistance dans la préparation de la décision), tels que les greffiers: 33
■le personnel en charge des différentes tâches administratives et de gestion du tribunal (ressources humaines, gestion du matériel et de équipements, gestion financière, etc): 9
■le personnel technique et de maintenance: 1
4. Budget annuel du tribunal (en €): 3.870.829 €
Ce montant incluit-il les salaires? OUI-NON
Si oui, incluit-il les salaires de tout le personnel ou du seul personnel non juge?
Il incluit les salaires de tout le personnel.
Réseau des tribunaux référents
ROMANIA : Part II - QUESTIONNAIRE
I. Situation des délais judiciaires dans votre tribunal
1. Le cas échéant, veuillez compléter ce tableau relatif au nombre d’affaires, à la durée des procédures et au stock d’affaires civiles et administratratives:
|
Affaires civiles |
Affaires administratives |
Divorces |
Licenciements |
|
|
Nombre annuel d’affaires entrant |
6000 |
1000 |
- |
- |
|
Nombre annuel de décisions judiciaires |
5500 |
800 |
- |
- |
|
Nombre d’affaires en attente (non jugées dans l’année) |
500 |
200 |
- |
- |
|
Nombre d’affaires en attente depuis plus de 3 ans (plus d’un an) |
20 |
10 |
- |
- |
|
Durée moyenne des procédures (depuis la date d’introduction de la requête auprès du tribunal *) |
Sept mois |
Cinq mois |
- |
- |
- Si vous n’êtes pas en mesure de calculer la durée moyenne à partir de la date d’introduction de la requête, comment calculez-vous les délais de procédure?
2. Le cas échéant, veuillez compléter ce tableau relatif au nombre d’affaires, à la durée des procédures et au stock d’affaires pénales:
|
Affaires pénales |
Affaires pour vols |
Affaires pour homicide volontaire |
|
|
Nombre annuel d’affaires entrant |
3000 |
- |
- |
|
Nombre annuel de décisions judiciaires |
2800 |
- |
- |
|
Nombre annuel de personnes condamnées |
2700 |
- |
- |
|
Nombre annuel de personnes acquittées |
50 |
- |
- |
|
Nombre d’affires en attente (non jugées dans l’année) |
200 |
- |
- |
|
Nombre d’affaires en attente depuis plus de 3 ans |
20 |
- |
- |
|
Durées moyene des procédures (depuis la date officielle d’incrimination)* |
Six mois |
- |
- |
* Si vous n’êtes pas en mesure de calculer la durée moyenne à partir de la date d’incrimination, comment calculez-vous les délais de procédure?
3. Avez-vous un dispositif permettant d’analyser les temps morts des procédures (durées pendant lesquelles rien ne se passe concernant l’affaires)? OUI/NON
Si oui, veuillez préciser:
L’analyse des causes qui détermine des retards dans la solution ou des délais judiciaires
4. Avez-vous une procédure interne vous permettant d’évaluer et de contrôler la durée des procédures? OUI/NON
Si oui, veuillez préciser:
Au niveau de la section pénale on surveille en permanence la durée de solutionner les causes, spécialement celles qui dépassent la durée moyene de solution
5. Avez-vous des indicateurs de performance et des objectifs définis au regard des durées des procédures? OUI/NON
II. Relations entre votre tribunal et les usagers de la justice
6. Votre tribunal dispose-t-il d’enquêtes auprès des usagers ou des professions juridiques permettant de mesurer la confiance et la satisfaction du public dans les services rendus par le tribunal? OUI/NON
III. Initiatives spécifiques développées par votre tribunal concernant les délais des procédures
7. Votre tribunal a-t-il une expérience en matière de contrôle ou de réduction des délais judiciaires? A-t-il notamment développé une ou plusieurs initiatives spécifiques dans ce domaine? Veuillez les décrire. Oui. La surveillance permanente des causes qui ne sont pas solutionnées dans un terme raisonnable.
8. Quels sont les effets de cette initiative? Veuillez préciser. L’amélioration de la durée des solutions des causes.
9. Quelles purraient être les modifications futures à apporter pour améliorer les résultats de cette initiative?
10. Cette initiative est-elle soutenue par les pouvoirs publics compétents dans votre pays? Si oui, veuillez préciser. Oui, par la stratégie de reforme du système judiciaire et par le Plan d’action.
11. Croyez-vous que cette initiative puisse être transposée à d’autres tribunaux dans les Etats européens? On ne sait pas pour le moment.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
Network of Pilot-courts
Member State: The Russian Federation
Submitted by: Mikhail VINOGRADOV, lawyer of the State Legal Directorate of the President of the Russian Federation
Proposed court: The Kaluga Regional Court
Contact person: Mikhail VINOGRADOV
Tel.: +7 095 206 2955
e-mail: [email protected]
Description of the court
1. The Kaluga Regional Court is the court of the second level in the hierarchy of the federal courts of general jurisdiction. It considers cases as the trial court, cassational court and the court of the supervisory instance (depending of the stage of consideration).
The Kaluga Regional Court includes two specialized chambers: the Judicial Chamber on Criminal Matters and the Judicial Chamber on Civil Matters. The structure of the court also includes five departments: financial accounting department, department of material and technical maintenance and exploitation and repairs of premises, personnel and record keeping department, department of judicial statistics, legal informatization, codification and generalization of judicial practice, and department of maintenance of judicial proceedings.
2. The Kaluga Regional Court considers civil, criminal and administrative cases.
64 administrative cases, on which the decisions of district courts or magistrates of peace did not enter into force, were considered by the Kaluga Regional Court in 2004. 56 decisions on administrative cases, which entered into force, were reconsidered by the President of the Kaluga Regional Court and his deputies.
27 criminal cases in respect of 49 persons were considered by the Judicial Chamber on Criminal Matters of the Kaluga Regional Court on the first instance in 2004. 2 307 cases were considered in the cassational instance.
53 civil cases were considered by the Judicial Chamber on Civil Matters of the Kaluga Regional Court on the first instance. 2 458 cases were considered in the cassational instance.
1 257 supervisory appeals and addresses were considered in the order of supervision.
3. At present, there are 35 judges and 61 administrative servicemen in the Kaluga Regional Court, the latter number includes 17 advisers to judges, 12 registrars of judicial hearings. There are also the administrator of the Court and nine members of maintenance staff.
4. The budget of the Kaluga Regional Court in 2004 was 43 725 700 Russian roubles (approximately 1 235 189 Euros). This includes salary for judges and non-judicial staff of the Court.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
Network of Pilot-courts
Submitted by: Igor Belko
(name)
______________________________
pROPOSED court : District Court of Bratislava I
address: zAHRADNICKA 10, 812 44 bRATISLAVA ______________________________
Contact person: dAšA KONTRIKOVA /JUDge/
tel: 00421 2 51118445
E-mail: [email protected]
***
DESCRIPTION OF YOUR COURT
Please specify if your court is
a court of first instance or a higher instance court:
first instance
a court of general jurisdiction or a specialised court (please specify):
court of general jurisdiction
Please describe the structure of your court, in particular the number of specialised chambers:
Our court is one of five District courts in Bratislava.
It has four specialised chambers : civil, commercial, administrative and criminal.
____________________________________________________________
What is the average volume and the nature (civil, commercial, administrative, criminal, etc.) of the cases addressed each year in your court?
Average volume of the cases addressed in our court from 2000 to 2004 /5 years/:
civil : 4.356
commercial : 1.770
administrative: 22
criminal: 547
____________________________________________________________
Please describe the composition of the court judicial and non judicial staff
Number of judges: 35
If appropriate, number of prosecutors attached to the court: -
Number of non judge administrative staff: 138
If possible, could you categorise between:
§ non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges (case file preparation, assistance during the hearing, keeping the minutes of the meetings, helping to prepare the decisions) such as registrars: 121
§ staff in charge of different administrative tasks as well as of the management of the courts (human resources management, material and equipment management, financial management, etc): 10
§ technical staff and staff in charge of maintenance functions: 7
Annual budget of the court (in €): 2.019.180
Does this amount include salaries? YES
If yes, does it include salaries for the whole staff or for the non judicial staff only?
For the whole staff.
(CEPEJ)
Network of Pilot-courts
SLOVAK REPUBLIC: DISTRICT COURT OF BRATISLAVA
I. The situation of the judicial timeframes in your court
If appropriate, please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases in civil and administrative matter.
|
Civil cases |
Administrative cases |
Divorce |
Employment dismissal |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
6 970 |
44 |
173 |
42 |
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
3 508 |
43 |
190 |
167 |
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
7 850 |
20 |
146 |
not available |
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
1 025 |
- |
6 |
not available |
|
Average length of proceedings (from date of filing the case to the court*) |
23,66 month |
not available |
not available |
36,76 month |
* If you cannot calculate the average length from the date of filing the case to the court, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
If appropriate, criminal cases in courts – please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases and specify definitions of incoming cases, starting and ending point of timeframes and pending cases:
|
Criminal cases |
Robbery cases |
Intentional homicide |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
559 |
37 |
- |
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
727 |
24 |
- |
|
Annual number of convicted persons |
721 |
24 |
- |
|
Annual number of acquitted persons |
6 |
- |
- |
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
247 |
16 |
- |
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
19 |
3 |
- |
|
Average length of proceedings (from the date of official charging*) |
6,79 month |
7,8 month |
- |
* If it is not possible to calculate the average length from the date of official charging, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
Do you have a way of analysing queuing time (time in which nothing happens with the case) during court procedures? NO
Do you have an internal procedure for evaluating and monitoring lengths of proceedings? NO
Do you have indicators of performance and targets as regards timeframes of procedures? NO
II. The relations between your court and the users of justice
Does your court have users’ or legal professionals’ surveys to measure public trust and satisfaction with the services delivered by the court? NO
III. Specific initiatives carried on within your court as regards timeframes of procedure[23]
Does your court have practical experience in monitoring or reducing judicial timeframes? Has it in particular developed one or several specific initiatives in this field? Please specify. No, it doesn´t.
What are the effects of this initiative? Please specify. x
What could be the possible future modifications which might improve the results of this initiative? x
Does this initiative have the support of the responsible public authorities in your country? If so, please give details. x
Do you believe this initiative to be usable in other courts in European states? x
IV. Concrete proposals from your court as regards optimum and foreseeable timeframes
Please, submit your comments or suggestions for a practical implementation, at the court level, of the Framework-Programme: "A new objective for judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe", in particular as regards some (or all) of the following proposals:
a) The situation at our court is such that our court counts among the most burdened in Slovakia due to severe shortages in both judges and judicial staff. Especially when one compares this to a disproportionally high number of cases being filed at the court.
Court is short of administrative and material support for the judges to be able to perform their duties properly, e.g. hearing rooms. Numbers of judges and staff at each court are prescribed by the Ministry of Justice. Recently, as a result of dynamic social and political development in Slovakia there have been several ocurrences of mass case filings at the court over the standard amount of cases being filed on average per year. Resulting from the above reasons our court, under the current circumstances, is not capable of providing any timeframe of length of proceedings to the parties.
Length of proceedings analyses are carried out at our court including the reasons
for delays. Judges are paying increased attention to old cases and regular monitoring is being done whether they act in such cases.
Our legal Acts on procedure give the judge an obligation to properly reason
their decisions. They also provide an obligation to try and decide a case on the first hearing as a rule, adjournment is only allowed due to serious reasons, which the judge shall announce to the parties and which shall be put on the record.
d) Cases are registered electronically in the same order as they have been filed at the court and using a computer they are immediately allocated to a random judge.
A judge also handles cased in the same order as they have been filed at the court while in simple cases he/she may chose to use a fast-track procedure.
Possibility of an alternative decision in a case is provided to the parties by law but is used little.
e) Hearings are organised by the judge in such manner that parties, witnesses, and plaintiffs are invited to appear before court at a specific hour.
f) Parties may file a complaint against delays in proceedings, which are to be addressed to the court President. Court President shall then notify the relevant judge to continue acting in the case in question.
g) Territorial jurisdiction of a court is examined by the judge as a first routine issue in each case. Procedure for transferring a case to a court having territorial jurisdiction is simple and informal. Parties are notified to which court has their case been transferred.
h) Justice system of our country does not allow for any agreements between courts and lawyers.
i) In cases requiring expert knowledge of court experts, the court shall decide about appointing such expert to elaborate an expert opinion while a specific deadline is provided for submitting such opinion. If the court expert does not respect the deadline he/she may be sanctioned.
j) Slovak justice is currently undergoing reforms within which there are new court clerks having law degree and other judicial staff being hired in order to shorten court proceedings.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
Network of Pilot-courts
Submitted by:
(name)
______________________________
pROPOSED court (Name): (a) District Court of Nova Gorica
address: kidričeva 14,
5000 nova gorica
Contact person: samo turel, court secretary
tel: + 386 (0) 5 3351 675
E-mail: [email protected]
***
DESCRIPTION OF YOUR COURT
Please specify if your court is
a court of first instance or a higher instance court:
Our court is a first instance court.
a court of general jurisdiction or a specialised court (please specify):
Our court is a court of general jurisdiction dealing with civil, commercial, insolvency and criminal cases.
Please describe the structure of your court, in particular the number of specialised chambers:
The court has three specialised chambers, the criminal chamber, the commercial chamber and the civil chamber.
What is the average volume and the nature (civil, commercial, administrative, criminal, etc.) of the cases addressed each year in your court?
CIVIL CASES: 413
CRIMINAL CASES: 354
COMMERCIAL CASES:403
The stated statistic represents the average number of the typical cases of each nature for the last three years ( 1002-2004)
Please describe the composition of the court judicial and non judicial staff
Number of judges: 13
If appropriate, number of prosecutors attached to the court:
Number of non judge administrative staff: 47
If possible, could you categorise between:
non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges (case file preparation, assistance during the hearing, keeping the minutes of the meetings, helping to prepare the decisions) such as registrars: 7
staff in charge of different administrative tasks as well as of the management of the courts (human resources management, material and equipment management, financial management, etc): 7
technical staff and staff in charge of maintenance functions: 6
Annual budget of the court (in €): 5 mio
Does this amount include salaries? YES – NO
If yes, does it include salaries for the whole staff or for the non judicial staff only?
The amount includes salaries for all the staff including the judges, as well as includes the expenses for ex-office appointed attorneys in criminal cases.
slovakia : QUESTIONNAIRE: dISTRICT COURT OF NOVA GORICA
I. The situation of the judicial timeframes in your court
If appropriate, please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases in civil and administrative matter.
|
Civil cases |
Administrative cases |
Divorce |
Employment dismissal |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
413** |
- |
137** |
- |
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
325** |
- |
131** |
- |
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
88** |
- |
6** |
- |
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
141** |
- |
_ |
- |
|
Average length of proceedings (from date of filing the case to the court*) |
19,6 months*** |
- |
N/a |
- |
* If you cannot calculate the average length from the date of filing the case to the court, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
** Average values for the last 3 years (2002-2004).
*** Proceeding time is calculated (according to the standards set by the supreme court) with the formula: unsolved cases at the beginning of the year/ annual number of judicial decisions X 12 months. The data stated above shows the proceeding time in 2004.
If appropriate, criminal cases in courts – please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases and specify definitions of incoming cases, starting and ending point of timeframes and pending cases:
|
Criminal cases |
Robbery cases |
Intentional homicide |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
180** |
2,3** |
2,6** |
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
155** |
2** |
1,6** |
|
Annual number of convicted persons |
117** |
1,3** |
1** |
|
Annual number of acquitted persons |
11** |
0.3** |
0.33** |
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
25 |
0 |
1 |
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
54** |
0 |
0.3 |
|
Average length of proceedings (from the date of official charging*) |
18.2 months |
N/a |
* If it is not possible to calculate the average length from the date of official charging, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
** Average values for the last 3 years (2002-2004)
Do you have a way of analysing queuing time (time in which nothing happens with the case) during court procedures? YES/NO
Do you have an internal procedure for evaluating and monitoring lengths of proceedings? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
Do you have indicators of performance and targets as regards timeframes of procedures? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
The indicators and performance targets are set as medium and long term goals in the budget proposal act. The indicators are: successful processing of all annually incoming cases (formula: number of judicial decisions or resolved cases/ number of incoming cases), successful processing of major (or literally more important) annually incoming cases (civil cases, commercial cases, criminal cases, juvenile criminal cases, preliminary criminal investigation cases, bankruptcy cases) (same formula as above), average time of processing all cases (formula: number of pending cases at the beginning of the year/ number of judicial decisions or resolved cases x 12 months), average time of processing major (or literally more important) cases (same nature of cases as above, same formula as above), backlog processing (formula: number of pending cases at the end of the year /number of cases that represent a backlog; the criteria when a pending case is a backlog is set in an Act (Sodni red) of the Ministry of justice and differs according to the nature of the case.), processing of cases pending for more then 10 or more than 5 years .
II. The relations between your court and the users of justice
Does your court have users’ or legal professionals’ surveys to measure public trust and satisfaction with the services delivered by the court? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
III. Specific initiatives carried on within your court as regards timeframes of procedure[24]
Does your court have practical experience in monitoring or reducing judicial timeframes? Has it in particular developed one or several specific initiatives in this field? Please specify.
Our court has adopted an alternative dispute resolution programme (ADR or mediation) in civil cases. Similar programs have been started in 4 district courts ( out of 11). The goal is to solve the cases that represent a backlog with settling the dispute without trial. If both parties agree to start this proceeding the court guarantees the first mediation meeting in 90 days. The proceeding is free for both parties and is led by specially trained mediators. The mediator's goal is to help the parties to reach an agreement that solves the dispute using negotiation techniques.
What are the effects of this initiative? Please specify.
What could be the possible future modifications which might improve the results of this initiative?
Mediators dealing with the ADR initiative are all our district court judges (3 mediators). While leading the mediation proceeding the judges can't deal with other pending cases. In april 2005 the court has made possible to four attorneys from Nova Gorica to attend special mediation courses and plans to broaden the mediation programme. With four new mediators it will be possible to relieve the burden from the judges-mediators. Our goal is to increase the number of solved cases trough mediation avoiding the negative impact on other judicial work.
Does this initiative have the support of the responsible public authorities in your country? If so, please give details.
The programme is an autonomous programme started at our court. The start of the programme has been notified to the Supreme court of Slovenia and to the Ministry of justice.
Do you believe this initiative to be usable in other courts in European states?
According to the experience of all the Slovene courts that have adopted this initiative the proceeding is usable.
IV. Concrete proposals from your court as regards optimum and foreseeable timeframes
Please, submit your comments or suggestions for a practical implementation, at the court level, of the Framework-Programme: "A new objective for judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe", in particular as regards some (or all) of the following proposals:
ensuring the transparency on timeframes for the users (see Line of Action 3: improving the foreseeability of the timeframes)
We would like to express our total support to this initiative as a mean of improving public opinion and confidence in judicial work. However we must stress that sometimes a foreseeable timeframe depends also on nonjudicial factors. Therefore our suggestion is to broaden the analyses to other (most common) nonjudicial factors that have an impact on the timeframes.
reducing queuing times (see Line of Action 4: defining and monitoring standards for an optimum timeframe for each type of case)
We support the initiative: in addition we would like to stress that in our juditial system the monitoring mechanisms for older cases already exist as reports of cases that represent a backlog and as reports of cases that are older than certain time limits. This statistic data is published in the annual statistic report issued by the Ministry of justice.
ensuring a systematic reasoning of court decisions and ensuring a prompt delivery of decisions to the parties (see Line of Action 9: acting on quality of proceedings)
Our legal system already has the so (legal or professional) co workers or assistants that prepare cases.
We agree with the forbidding of sine die adjournments of proceedings and are already trying to follow this rule. We would like to add that also second instance decisions should follow this line of proceeding according to the legislative possibilities. Another question that strongly affects the foreseeable timeframes of proceedings and should be encompassed are the rulings of second instance courts. Second instance courts should end proceedings with meritory decisions whenever possible (as a rule) and try to avoid dismissing first instance rulings and returning the proceeding to first instance courts.
selecting cases according to their complexity (see Line of Action 10: defining priorities in case management)
organising trials to reduce waiting time, while paying special attention to victims and witnesses (see Line of Action 11)
setting up a procedure to revive a pending case (see Line of Action 12)
Our legal system already has special complaints that are available to the party that finds the proceeding too slow. The complaint is filled in the courts president's office. The judge that deals with the critical case must compile a report stating the reasons for the delays or the prolonged pendency. If the stated reasons are not objectively reasoned the president of the court can undertake certain actions to speed up the proceeding.
organisation of the transmission of a case from a non competent court to the competent court (see Line of Action 13: making more flexible the rules on territorial jurisdiction of first instance courts)
setting up "contracts of objective" between courts and lawyers (see Line of Action 16: organising the relationships with lawyers)
enhancing the responsibility of judicial experts as regards judicial timeframes (see Line of Action 17: improving the monitoring of compliance with the time-limits by judicial experts)
involving judicial professions in the efforts towards optimum and foreseeable timeframes (Line of Action 18: defining the modalities for having bailiffs, clerks / Rechtspfleger, notaries and all other professions involved in justice)
Please, feel free to comment on any other proposals included in the Framework-
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
Network of Pilot-courts
Member state: Slovenia
Submitted by: president of the district court
(name)
janez smolej
pROPOSED court (Name): (b) District Court of Novo Mesto
address: JEREBOVA ULICA 2
SI – 8000 NOVO MESTO
Contact person: secretary general, janez grden
tel: +386 7 33 81 100
E-mail: +386 7 33 22 058
***
DESCRIPTION OF YOUR COURT
Please specify if your court is
a court of first instance or a higher instance court:
a court of first instance (district court)
a court of general jurisdiction or a specialised court (please specify):
general jurisdiction court (civil, commercial and criminal matters are dealt)
Please describe the structure of your court, in particular the number of specialised chambers:
The court has three chambers as already mentioned above. Those are civil, commercial and criminal chamber. To each of them are assigned judges and other administrative employers.
What is the average volume and the nature (civil, commercial, administrative, criminal, etc.) of the cases addressed each year in your court?
In fiscal year 2004 District court of Novo mesto received (all data refers to principal cases) :
653 civil cases,
370 commercial cases (including composition – 7 cases, bankruptcy – 41 cases , liquidation of companies – 0 cases),
416 criminal cases
In civil matters 41,5% presents claims for damages, 25,2% of cases presents status dispute, 4,1% presents disputes of debtor – creditor relationship, 2,2% are paental responsibility cases (alimony as child`s right), 1,8% cases relating question to award custody of the child to the mother or father.
In commercial cases most of them presents insurance disputes (10,6%), claim for damages (6,8%), building disputes (4,6%), bankruptcy (2,5%).
In criminal cases: property crimes (33,5%), public order crimes (20,1%), commercial crimes (19,5%), crime against ones life health (11,2%), crime against ones life(7,8%) , traffic crimes (4,5%).
Please describe the composition of the court judicial and non judicial staff
Number of judges: 10
If appropriate, number of prosecutors attached to the court: /
Number of non judge administrative staff: 41
If possible, could you categorise between:
§ non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges (case file preparation, assistance during the hearing, keeping the minutes of the meetings, helping to prepare the decisions) such as registrars: 3
§ staff in charge of different administrative tasks as well as of the management of the courts (human resources management, material and equipment management, financial management, etc): 7
§ technical staff and staff in charge of maintenance functions: 8
Annual budget of the court (in €): 3.656.925 EUROS
Does this amount include salaries? YES – NO
If yes, does it include salaries for the whole staff or for the non judicial staff only?
The amount include salaries for the whole staff (judges and other non-judge staff).
QUESTIONNAIRE
I. The situation of the judicial timeframes in your court
If appropriate, please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases in civil and administrative matter.
Presented statistic data refer to year 2004!
|
Civil cases |
Administrative cases |
Divorce |
Employment dismissal |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
653 |
/ |
/ |
/ |
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
537 |
|||
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
64 |
|||
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
7 |
|||
|
Average length of proceedings (from date of filing the case to the court*) |
7,73 months |
* If you cannot calculate the average length from the date of filing the case to the court, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
If appropriate, criminal cases in courts – please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases and specify definitions of incoming cases, starting and ending point of timeframes and pending cases:
Presented statistic data refer to year 2004!
|
Criminal cases |
Robbery cases |
Intentional homicide |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
416 |
/ |
/ |
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
411 |
||
|
Annual number of convicted persons |
149 |
||
|
Annual number of acquitted persons |
21 |
||
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
32 |
||
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
4 |
||
|
Average length of proceedings (from the date of official charging*) |
8,175 months |
* If it is not possible to calculate the average length from the date of official charging, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
Do you have a way of analysing queuing time (time in which nothing happens with the case) during court procedures? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
Court rules have no such provision. Article 50 of Court rules fixes a time-limit within court should adjudicate on the case in dispute. In principal cases this period is set to 18 months after the case has been presented before the court. If judge, working on the case does not manage to reach a decision within 18 period time it is considered as delayed. In such cases Courts Act gives to the president of the court authority to demand from presiding judge to write special report and present the circumstances why the decision has not been reached. Our court monitors the efficiency of each judge as well as the efficiency of the court through special statistical reports. Those reports are presented to the judges each month when they are subject to discussion.
Do you have an internal procedure for evaluating and monitoring lengths of proceedings? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
Each court office (civil, commercial, criminal) monthly monitors statistical data (number of incoming cases, judicial decisions…). Statistical report at the end of each month also reveals information on number of cases where legal procedure has not ended in period set down by Court rules. That gives to the president of the court authorities to the certain actions.
Do you have indicators of performance and targets as regards timeframes of procedures? YES/NO
II. The relations between your court and the users of justice
Does your court have users’ or legal professionals’ surveys to measure public trust and satisfaction with the services delivered by the court? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
No such survey exists. The Courts Acts provides other means for the party that feels dissatisfied with judge working on a case. Courts Acts provides such party so called supervising complaint. Such complaint must be filed directly to the president of the court. Supervising complaint starts special administrative procedure and the purpose is to determine, whether judge is working on a case correctly and that the constitutional right for speedy trail is respected. Presented procedure ends with decision made by the president of the court. This decision usually orders judge to take necessary steps as demanded or as on the other hand procedure can establish that the judge has not broke any rule and thus procedure is legal.
III. Specific initiatives carried on within your court as regards timeframes of procedure[25]
Does your court have practical experience in monitoring or reducing judicial timeframes? Has it in particular developed one or several specific initiatives in this field? Please specify.
What are the effects of this initiative? Please specify.
What could be the possible future modifications which might improve the results of this initiative?
Does this initiative have the support of the responsible public authorities in your country? If so, please give details.
Do you believe this initiative to be usable in other courts in European states?
IV. Concrete proposals from your court as regards optimum and foreseeable timeframes
Please, submit your comments or suggestions for a practical implementation, at the court level, of the Framework-Programme: "A new objective for judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe", in particular as regards some (or all) of the following proposals:
ensuring the transparency on timeframes for the users (see Line of Action 3: improving the foreseeability of the timeframes)
reducing queuing times (see Line of Action 4: defining and monitoring standards for an optimum timeframe for each type of case)
ensuring a systematic reasoning of court decisions and ensuring a prompt delivery of decisions to the parties (see Line of Action 9: acting on quality of proceedings)
selecting cases according to their complexity (see Line of Action 10: defining priorities in case management)
organising trials to reduce waiting time, while paying special attention to victims and witnesses (see Line of Action 11)
setting up a procedure to revive a pending case (see Line of Action 12)
organisation of the transmission of a case from a non competent court to the competent court (see Line of Action 13: making more flexible the rules on territorial jurisdiction of first instance courts)
setting up "contracts of objective" between courts and lawyers (see Line of Action 16: organising the relationships with lawyers)
enhancing the responsibility of judicial experts as regards judicial timeframes (see Line of Action 17: improving the monitoring of compliance with the time-limits by judicial experts)
involving judicial professions in the efforts towards optimum and foreseeable timeframes (Line of Action 18: defining the modalities for having bailiffs, clerks / Rechtspfleger, notaries and all other professions involved in justice)
Please, feel free to comment on any other proposals included in the Framework-Programme.
Slovenia
(c) District Court of Maribor (awaiting electronic copy)
(Awaiting electronic copy)
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
Network of Pilot-courts
Submitted by: ___JUSTICE MINISTRY_____
(name)
______________________________
pROPOSED court (Name): Juzgado Mercantil 3 Barcelona (COMMERCIAL COURT Nº 3 Barcelona)_
address: C/ AUSIAS MARC 36-40 Barcelona (08004) SPAIN
Contact person: Mª Aranzazu ALAMEDA LÓPEZ (MASTER of the cour) Y José Mª Fernández Seijo (JuDGE)_________
tel: +34935527883_____________________
E-mail: [email protected]
***
DESCRIPTION OF YOUR COURT
Please specify if your court is
a court of first instance or a higher instance court:
First instance.
a court of general jurisdiction or a specialised court (please specify):Specialised in commercial affairs
Please describe the structure of your court, in particular the number of specialised chambers:
There are 4 courts specialised in commercial affairs in Barcelona. One Judge and one secretary in each court. 8 Civil employees in each court.
What is the average volume and the nature (civil, commercial, administrative, criminal, etc.) of the cases addressed each year in your court? About 600 of commercial cases in one year.
Please describe the composition of the court judicial and non judicial staff
Number of judges: One Judge.
If appropriate, number of prosecutors attached to the court: No prosecutors.
Number of non judge administrative staff: 9 persons.
If possible, could you categorise between: One master of the court, and 8 civil employees.
§ non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges (case file preparation, assistance during the hearing, keeping the minutes of the meetings, helping to prepare the decisions) such as registrars: One._______
§ staff in charge of different administrative tasks as well as of the management of the courts (human resources management, material and equipment management, financial management, etc): Eight___
§ technical staff and staff in charge of maintenance functions: one for all the courts in Barcelona.,
Annual budget of the court (in €): We haven’t annual budget is a global budget.
Does this amount include salaries? YES – NO
If yes, does it include salaries for the whole staff or for the non judicial staff only?
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
Network of Pilot-courts
QUESTIONNAIRE
I. The situation of the judicial timeframes in your court
If appropriate, please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases in civil and administrative matter.
|
Civil cases |
Administrative cases |
Divorce |
Employment dismissal |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
600 |
|||
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
400 |
|||
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
200 |
|||
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
No (Is a new court) |
|||
|
Average length of proceedings (from date of filing the case to the court*) |
4 to 6 months |
* If you cannot calculate the average length from the date of filing the case to the court, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
If appropriate, criminal cases in courts – please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases and specify definitions of incoming cases, starting and ending point of timeframes and pending cases:
|
Criminal cases |
Robbery cases |
Intentional homicide |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
|||
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
|||
|
Annual number of convicted persons |
|||
|
Annual number of acquitted persons |
|||
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
|||
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
|||
|
Average length of proceedings (from the date of official charging*) |
* If it is not possible to calculate the average length from the date of official charging, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
Do you have a way of analysing queuing time (time in which nothing happens with the case) during court procedures? YES/NO NO.
Do you have an internal procedure for evaluating and monitoring lengths of proceedings? YES/NO.- YES.
If yes, please specify: There is an internal procedure for evaluation with a special type of statictis named “módulos de trabajo o evaluación del rendimiento” (evaluation of the yield).
Do you have indicators of performance and targets as regards timeframes of procedures? YES/NO NO.
II. The relations between your court and the users of justice
Does your court have users’ or legal professionals’ surveys to measure public trust and satisfaction with the services delivered by the court? YES/NO.- YES.
If yes, please specify: In Each court there are mailboxes of complaints and there are administrative control of these complaints.
III. Specific initiatives carried on within your court as regards timeframes of procedure[26]
Does your court have practical experience in monitoring or reducing judicial timeframes? Has it in particular developed one or several specific initiatives in this field? Please specify.- NO.
What are the effects of this initiative? Please specify.
What could be the possible future modifications which might improve the results of this initiative? YES.
Does this initiative have the support of the responsible public authorities in your country? If so, please give details.- YES. In Spain there are a bill of rights of the citizen before the justice administration.
Do you believe this initiative to be usable in other courts in European states? Yes.
IV. Concrete proposals from your court as regards optimum and foreseeable timeframes
Please, submit your comments or suggestions for a practical implementation, at the court level, of the Framework-Programme: "A new objective for judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe", in particular as regards some (or all) of the following proposals:
ensuring the transparency on timeframes for the users (see Line of Action 3: improving the foreseeability of the timeframes) .- beforehand determine the real duration of the procedures.
reducing queuing times (see Line of Action 4: defining and monitoring standards for an optimum timeframe for each type of case) .- To make agile the transaction of measures you will prevent and the quick celebration of judgments of reduced quantity
ensuring a systematic reasoning of court decisions and ensuring a prompt delivery of decisions to the parties (see Line of Action 9: acting on quality of proceedings).- To beforehand establish the date in which they will be given resolutions
selecting cases according to their complexity (see Line of Action 10: defining priorities in case management).- No.
organising trials to reduce waiting time, while paying special attention to victims and witnesses (see Line of Action 11).- Yes, concentrate in one day the trials of the similar o same case.
setting up a procedure to revive a pending case (see Line of Action 12).- No.
organisation of the transmission of a case from a non competent court to the competent court (see Line of Action 13: making more flexible the rules on territorial jurisdiction of first instance courts).- Yes. Automatic transmission to the competent court.
setting up "contracts of objective" between courts and lawyers (see Line of Action 16: organising the relationships with lawyers).- YES.
enhancing the responsibility of judicial experts as regards judicial timeframes (see Line of Action 17: improving the monitoring of compliance with the time-limits by judicial experts).- YES.
involving judicial professions in the efforts towards optimum and foreseeable timeframes (Line of Action 18: defining the modalities for having bailiffs, clerks / Rechtspfleger, notaries and all other professions involved in justice).- YES. Indicating that a correct collaboration of all makes agile procedures.
Please, feel free to comment on any other proposals included in the Framework-Programme.
The establishment of average more effective in the administration of justice it is a very positive objective and must prevail homogenous criteria on duration of procedures and treatment to the citizens and the professionals beyond the procedural norms, but these measures cannot decrease system of judicial guarantees.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
Network of Pilot-courts
Submitted by: Judge Alf Andersson
(name)
pROPOSED court (Name): Huddinge District Court
address: s-141 84 huddinge
sweden
Contact person: judge Britt Björneke
tel: +48 8 608 95 00
E-mail: [email protected]
***
DESCRIPTION OF YOUR COURT
Please specify if your court is
a court of first instance or a higher instance court:
First instance
a court of general jurisdiction or a specialised court (please specify):
General jurisdiction
Please describe the structure of your court, in particular the number of specialised chambers:
Three general divisions and an administrative section
2. What is the average volume and the nature (civil, commercial, administrative, criminal, etc.) of the cases addressed each year in your court?
2 200 criminal cases
1 100 civil cases (incl. 400 family matters)
900 noncontentious matters
200 bankruptcy petitions
600 dissolution of marriage (not dispute)
3. Please describe the composition of the court judicial and non judicial staff
a. Number of judges: 12
b. If appropriate, number of prosecutors attached to the court: 25
Number of non judge administrative staff: 35, (12 district court clerk, 17 secretaries)
If possible, could you categorise between:
§ non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges (case file preparation, assistance during the hearing, keeping the minutes of the meetings, helping to prepare the decisions) such as registrars: 29
§ staff in charge of different administrative tasks as well as of the management of the courts (human resources management, material and equipment management, financial management, etc): 3
§ technical staff and staff in charge of maintenance functions: 3
4. Annual budget of the court (in €): 2,8
Does this amount include salaries? YES – NO
If yes, does it include salaries for the whole staff or for the non judicial staff only?
Whole staff
PART II: QUESTIONNAIRE: hUDDINGE TINGSRÄTT (The district court of huddinge)
QUESTIONNAIRE
I. The situation of the judicial timeframes in your court
If appropriate, please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases in civil and administrative matter.
|
2004 |
Civil cases |
Administrative cases |
Divorce joint application |
Employment dismissal |
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
1158 |
313 |
3 |
|
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
1139 |
612 |
||
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
513 |
241 |
3 |
|
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
1 |
0 |
||
|
Average length of proceedings (from date of filing the case to the court*) |
7.7 months 5,6 (family cases) 2,7 (small amounts) |
5,9 |
* If you cannot calculate the average length from the date of filing the case to the court, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
In Sweden you usually set up targets about the cases in median times
If appropriate, criminal cases in courts – please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases and specify definitions of incoming cases, starting and ending point of timeframes and pending cases:
|
Criminal cases |
Robbery cases |
Intentional homicide |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
2040 |
? |
? |
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
2008 |
? |
? |
|
Annual number of convicted persons |
? |
||
|
Annual number of acquitted persons |
|||
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
498 |
||
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
9 |
||
|
Average length of proceedings (from the date of official charging*) |
2,8 |
* If it is not possible to calculate the average length from the date of official charging, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
Do you have a way of analysing queuing time (time in which nothing happens with the case) during court procedures? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
No_________________________________________________________
Do you have an internal procedure for evaluating and monitoring lengths of proceedings? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
Each unit of the court has set up its targets and they are followed up. Every year the chief judge is going through the oldest cases in every unit and demands explanation why the cases still are pending.
Do you have indicators of performance and targets as regards timeframes of procedures? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
The Swedish government sets up targets for civil cases and criminal cases etc concerning timeframes of procedure and the courts are working to fulfil these targets. There are reports every year about the results.
II. The relations between your court and the users of justice
Does your court have users’ or legal professionals’ surveys to measure public trust and satisfaction with the services delivered by the court? YES/NO
If yes, please specify: In 2000 there was a survey to criminal victims, lawyers, witnesses and prosecutors who had been acting in criminal cases how satisfied they were with the service delivered by the court. The results of the survey were pretty good. Since then there hasn’t been any survey
III. Specific initiatives carried on within your court as regards timeframes of procedure[27]
Does your court have practical experience in monitoring or reducing judicial timeframes? Has it in particular developed one or several specific initiatives in this field? Please specify.
There have been projects with different organizations with an increased number of law clerks, secretaries and assistant judges who have prepared the cases so that the judges have been able to concentrate in more difficult and extensive cases. The projects have been successful. In that way the court has been able to fulfil the targets. The court is divided in units’ of 2-3 judges in each unit. The judges in every unit can share the amount of work so that while one judge is concentrating in for example a big civil case the others can deal with more trivial cases.
What are the effects of this initiative? Please specify.
Look above
What could be the possible future modifications which might improve the results of this initiative?
The court will permanently increase the staff who are preparing the cases and who can try and judge in easier cases so that the judges can have more time in more complicated cases.
Does this initiative have the support of the responsible public authorities in your country? If so, please give details.
The National Courts Administration is supporting such projects so other courts can become more efficient. The Swedish law is also recommending the court to set up timeframes in corporation with the users in every civil case.
Do you believe this initiative to be usable in other courts in European states?
Yes. It’s very important that there is time for the judge to concentrate in judging in more complicated cases.
IV. Concrete proposals from your court as regards optimum and foreseeable timeframes
Please, submit your comments or suggestions for a practical implementation, at the court level, of the Framework-Programme: "A new objective for judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe", in particular as regards some (or all) of the following proposals:
k) ensuring the transparency on timeframes for the users (see Line of Action 3: improving the foreseeability of the timeframes)
l) reducing queuing times (see Line of Action 4: defining and monitoring standards for an optimum timeframe for each type of case)
m) ensuring a systematic reasoning of court decisions and ensuring a prompt delivery of decisions to the parties (see Line of Action 9: acting on quality of proceedings)
n) selecting cases according to their complexity (see Line of Action 10: defining priorities in case management)
o) organising trials to reduce waiting time, while paying special attention to victims and witnesses (see Line of Action 11)
p) setting up a procedure to revive a pending case (see Line of Action 12)
q) organisation of the transmission of a case from a non competent court to the competent court (see Line of Action 13: making more flexible the rules on territorial jurisdiction of first instance courts)
r) setting up "contracts of objective" between courts and lawyers (see Line of Action 16: organising the relationships with lawyers)
s) enhancing the responsibility of judicial experts as regards judicial timeframes (see Line of Action 17: improving the monitoring of compliance with the time-limits by judicial experts)
t) involving judicial professions in the efforts towards optimum and foreseeable timeframes (Line of Action 18: defining the modalities for having bailiffs, clerks / Rechtspfleger, notaries and all other professions involved in justice)
Please, feel free to comment on any other proposals included in the Framework-Programme.
In the Swedish legislation there are possibilities to get the parties to keep the time limits. If they don’t follow the court orders, the court can forbid them to refer to any further circumstances in the case.
In Sweden we already are dealing with several of the suggestions. It’s very important with voluntary agreements with the users to reduce the queuing time. In our court cooperation among the judges in very unit is important to reduce the waiting times. It’s also important to use every judge’s specialist knowledge. The judges and the staff are striving to agree about the targets of time frames and time limits and quality codes in the cases and fulfil the targets.
Network of Pilot-courts
MEMBER STATE: Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
SUBMITTED BY: PRESIDENT OF THE COURT
(NAME) MS DOBRILA KACARSKA
PROPOSED COURT (NAME): Basic Court Skopje I - SKOPJE
ADDRESS: BUL: GOCE DELCEV BB
SKOPJE
CONTACT PERSON: PRESIDENT OF THE COURT
MS DOBRILA KACARSKA
TEL:
E- MAIL:
DESCRIPTION OF YOUR COURT
1. Please specify if your court is
a. a court of first instance or a higher instance court:
A first instance court.
b. a court of general jurisdiction or a specialised court (please specify):
This court is structures as a court with general competencies, and
specialized competencies in the areas of war crimes and labour law.
c. Please describe the structure of your court, in particular the number of specialized chambers:
2. What is the average volume and the nature (civil, commercial, administrative, criminal, etc.) of the cases addressed each year in your court?
CRIMINAL CASES 2.232
CRIMINAL CASES -JUVENILES 155
CRIMINAL COUCIL 1795
CRIMINAL SANCTIONS 966
CRIMINAL PETITIONS 125
OTHER CRIMINAL ACTIONS 19.853
TOTAL: 25.126
INVESTIGATIVE CASES
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION 882
INVESTIGATIVE ACTIONS 823
TOTAL: 1.705
MISDEMEANOUR CASES 51.505
MISDEMEANOUR SANCTIONS 12.163
TOTAL: 63.668
CRIMINAL CASES TOTAL: 90.499
CIVIL CASES 5.184
CIVIL PETITIONS 388
OTHER. CIVIL ACTIONS 10.708
COMMERCIAL CASES 2.118
BANKRUPTCY AND LIQUIDATION 882
REGISTR.ATIONS 10.957
EXTRA-JUDICIAL PROCEDURE 2.385
EXECUTIVE PROCEDURE 43.967
TITLE DEEDS 10
MORTGAGES 621
VERIFICATIONS 2.530
CIVIL CASE TOTAL: 79.788
3. Please describe the composition of the court judicial and non judicial staff
a. Number of judges:79 (81, according to the systematization)
b. If appropriate, number of prosecutors attached to the court: The court is not attached with public prosecutors.
c. Number of non judge administrative staff:
If possible, could you categorise between:
non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges (case file preparation, assistance during the hearing, keeping the minutes of the meetings, helping to prepare the decisions) such as registrars: 20 (64, according to the systematization)
staff in charge of different administrative tasks as well as of the management of the courts (human resources management, materia1 and equipment management, financia1 management, etc): 211
technical staff and staff in charge of maintenance functions: 25
4. Annual budget of the court (in C): 2.383155,00 EUR
Does this amount include salaries? YES –NO
If yes, does it include salaries for the whole staff or for the non judicial staff only?
Salaries for the whole staff.
BASIC COURT SKOPJE I- SKOPJE
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
Network of Pilot-courts
QUESTIONNAIRE
I. The situation of the judicial timeframes in Basic Court Skopje I- Skopje
1. If appropriate, please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases in civil and administrative matter.
|
2004 |
Civil cases |
Administrative cases |
Divorce |
Employment dismissal |
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
5184 |
/ |
304 |
434 |
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
4791 |
/ |
302 |
499 |
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
7858 |
/ |
31 |
322 |
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
1961 |
/ |
/ |
105 |
|
Average length of Proceedings (from date of filing the case to the court*) |
From 6 months to l year |
From 3 months to 6 months |
From 6 months to 1 year |
-
*If you cannot calculate the average length from the date of filing the case to the court, how do you calculate length of proceedings ?
2. If appropriate, criminal cases in courts -please complete this table concerning the number of cases/1ength of proceedings/pending cases and specify definitions of incoming cases, starting and ending point of timeframes and pending cases:
|
2004 |
Criminal cases |
Robbery cases |
Intentional homicide |
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
2232 |
513 |
14 |
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
811 |
291 |
11 |
|
Annual number of convicted persons |
1592 |
84 |
10 |
|
Annual number of acquitted persons |
485 |
14 |
6 |
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
1421 |
222 |
3 |
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
421 |
105 |
9 |
|
Average length of proceedings (from the date of official charging*) |
More than 6 months |
From 3 months to 6 months |
From 3 months to 6 months |
If it is not possible to calculate the average length from the date of official! charging, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
If appropriate, please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases in civil and administrative matter.
|
2003 |
Civil cases |
Administrative cases |
Divorce |
Employment dismissal |
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
5889 |
/ |
366 |
2 |
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
4693 |
/ |
337 |
384 |
|
Number of pending cases(not completed in the year) |
7465 |
/ |
29 |
264 |
|
Number of pending of more than 3 years |
1272 |
/ |
/ |
87 |
|
Average length of proceedings (from to 1 year to 6 months to 1 year date of filing the case to the court*) |
From 6 months to 1 year |
/ |
From 3 months to 6 months |
From 6 months to 1 year |
If you cannot calculate the average length from the date of filing the case to the court, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
If appropriate, criminal cases in courts -please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases and specify definitions of incoming cases, starting and ending point of timeframes and pending cases:
|
2003 |
Criminal cases |
Robbery cases |
Intentional homicide |
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
1666 |
429 |
2 |
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
934 |
371 |
1 |
|
Annual number of convicted persons |
135 |
112 |
/ |
|
Annual number of acquitted persons |
48 |
42 |
1 |
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
1019 |
58 |
1 |
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
527 |
152 |
8 |
|
Average length of 3 months to proceedings(from the date of official charging*) |
More than 6 months |
From 3 months to 6 months |
From 3 months to 6 months |
* If it is not possible to calculate the average length from the date of official! charging, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
3. Do you have a way of analysing queuing time (time in which nothing happens with the case) during court procedures? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
NO, according to the Law on criminal procedure, the queuing time is not
foreseen.
4. Do you have an internal! procedure for evaluating and monitoring lengths of
proceedings? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
YES.
Through monthly reports.
The chief of the criminal archive submits reports every 15 days, if and what
cases have been decided and if the verdicts are prepared in reasonable
lime.
5. Do you have indicators of performance and targets as regards timeframes of procedures?
YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
II. The relations between your court and the users of justice
6. Does your court have users' or legal professionals' surveys to measure public trust and satisfaction with the services delivered by the court? YES/NO
NO, we are not entitled with this right.
If yes, please specify:
III. Specific initiatives carried on within your court as regards timeframes of procedure[28].
7. Does your court have practical experience in monitoring or reducing judicial timeframes? Has it in particular developed one or several specific initiatives in this field? Please specify.
There is a practical experience in monitoring, which is provided by the
instruments of the Law on Criminal Procedure and the Court Rules of
work.
8. What are the effects of this initiative? Please specify .
The effects are positive, having in mind the tact that there is a progress in
reducing procedural timeframes.
9. What could be the possible future modifications which might improve the results of this initiative?
10. Does this initiative have the support of the responsible public authorities in your country? If so, please give details.
11. Do you believe this initiative to be usable in other courts in European states?
Yes, using the results of this initiative would be a useful experience for
other courts and for other European countries.
Proposed Court: (a) Manchester County Court
Court Contact: Sue Brooks
Submitted by: Deirdre Boylan
Part II: QUESTIONNAIRE
I. The situation of the judicial timeframes in your court
1. If appropriate, please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases in civil and administrative matter.
Civil cases Administrative cases
Divorce
Employment dismissal
Annual number of incoming cases
26,000 (civil)
(divorce)
1465 (cases involving children)
Annual number of judicial decisions
45,000 (civil)
!8,000 (Family)
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year)
340 (civil)
250 (Family)
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years
0
Average length of proceedings (from date of filing the case to the court*)
From defence to determination:
Small claims (up to £5K) 15 weeks
Fast track (up to £15K) 30 weeks
Multi-track (over £15K) 50 weeks
* If you cannot calculate the average length from the date of filing the case to the court, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
2. If appropriate, criminal cases in courts – please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases and specify definitions of incoming cases, starting and ending point of timeframes and pending cases:
Criminal cases
Robbery cases
Intentional homicide
Annual number of incoming cases
Annual number of judicial decisions
Annual number of convicted persons
Annual number of acquitted persons
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year)
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years
Average length of proceedings (from the date of official charging*)
* If it is not possible to calculate the average length from the date of official charging, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
3. Do you have a way of analysing queuing time (time in which nothing happens with the case) during court procedures? YES/NO YES
If yes, please specify. Case management reports to a set timetable . Obligation reports. Reports on the inactivity of parties.
4. Do you have an internal procedure for evaluating and monitoring lengths of proceedings? YES/NO YES
If yes, please specify. Monthly reports
5. Do you have indicators of performance and targets as regards timeframes of procedures? YES/NO YES
If yes, please specify. 80% of small claim cases to be dealt with within 15 weeks; 85% of Fast track within 30 weeks; 85% of multi-track within 50 weeks.
II. The relations between your court and the users of justice
6. Does your court have users’ or legal professionals’ surveys to measure public trust and satisfaction with the services delivered by the court? YES/NO YES
If yes, please specify. 3 public surveys per year.
Holders of Charter Mark, i.e. achieving a level of excellence in customer service gauged through customer satisfaction surveys.
III. Specific initiatives carried on within your court as regards timeframes of procedure2
7. Does your court have practical experience in monitoring or reducing judicial timeframes? Has it in particular developed one or several specific initiatives in this field? Please specify.
8. What are the effects of this initiative? Please specify.
9. What could be the possible future modifications which might improve the results of this initiative?
10. Does this initiative have the support of the responsible public authorities in your country? If so, please give details.
11. Do you believe this initiative to be usable in other courts in European states?
IV. Concrete proposals from your court as regards optimum and foreseeable timeframes
12. Please, submit your comments or suggestions for a practical implementation, at the court level, of the Framework-Programme: "A new objective for judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe", in particular as regards some (or all) of the following proposals:
a. ensuring the transparency on timeframes for the users (see Line of Action 3: improving the foreseeability of the timeframes)
b. reducing queuing times (see Line of Action 4: defining and monitoring standards for an optimum timeframe for each type of case)
c. ensuring a systematic reasoning of court decisions and ensuring a prompt delivery of decisions to the parties (see Line of Action 9: acting on quality of proceedings)
d. selecting cases according to their complexity (see Line of Action 10: defining priorities in case management)
e. organising trials to reduce waiting time, while paying special attention to victims and witnesses (see Line of Action 11)
f. setting up a procedure to revive a pending case (see Line of Action 12)
g. organisation of the transmission of a case from a non competent court to the competent court (see Line of Action 13: making more flexible the rules on territorial jurisdiction of first instance courts)
h. setting up "contracts of objective" between courts and lawyers (see Line of Action 16: organising the relationships with lawyers)
i. enhancing the responsibility of judicial experts as regards judicial timeframes (see Line of Action 17: improving the monitoring of compliance with the time-limits by judicial experts)
j. involving judicial professions in the efforts towards optimum and foreseeable timeframes (Line of Action 18: defining the modalities for having bailiffs, clerks / Rechtspfleger, notaries and all other professions involved in justice)
13. Please, feel free to comment on any other proposals included in the Framework-Programme.
Member state: United Kingdom
Court (Name): (b) London County Court
Address: 13/14 Park Crescent
LONDON W1B 1HT
Contact person: Michael Burke
Tel: 00 44 20 7917 5140
E.mail: [email protected]
QUESTIONNAIRE
I. The situation of the judicial timeframes in your court
1. If appropriate, please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases in civil and administrative matter.
Civil cases. K19
Administrative cases
Divorce
Employment dismissal
Annual number of incoming cases
22 including transfers
Annual number of judicial decisions
K30
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year)
400
ÿ
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years
ÿ
ÿ0
ÿ
ÿ
Average length of proceedings (from date of filing the case to the court*)
ÿ
ÿ15 weeks small claim
26 weeks fast track
ÿ
ÿ35 weeks multi track
* If you cannot calculate the average length from the date of filing the case to the court, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
2. If appropriate, criminal cases in courts - please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases and specify definitions of incoming cases, starting and ending point of timeframes and pending cases:
ÿ
Criminal cases
Robbery cases
Intentional homicide
Annual number of incoming cases
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
Annual number of judicial decisions
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
Annual number of convicted persons
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
Annual number of acquitted persons
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year)
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
Average length of proceedings (from the date of official charging*)
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
* If it is not possible to calculate the average length from the date of official charging, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
3. Do you have a way of analysing queuing time (time in which nothing happens with the case) during court procedures? YES.
All cases are case managed and therefore all defended cases are either allocated to track or are referred to a Judge for a stay or case directions.
4. Do you have an internal procedure for evaluating and monitoring lengths of proceedings? NO
This is not necessary because Court rules provide for all defended cases to be logged onto the system and various reports are obtained from the CaseMan computer system
If yes, please specify.
5. Do you have indicators of performance and targets as regards timeframes of procedures? YES
Court statistics are downloaded on a monthly basis
If yes, please specify.
II. The relations between your court and the users of justice
6. Does your court have users' or legal professionals' surveys to measure public trust and satisfaction with the services delivered by the court? YES
If yes, please specify. Yes we have various users groups, we conduct local surveys against a range of business delivery and also rely upon the national Customer satisfaction survey.
III. Specific initiatives carried on within your court as regards timeframes of procedure2
7. Does your court have practical experience in monitoring or reducing judicial timeframes? Has it in particular developed one or several specific initiatives in this field? Please specify.
Yes, the Court agrees a listing policy for the judges that takes into account the requirements of PSA 4 targets against the three case tracks. In addition fast track cases are now listed as a fixture within the trial window that avoids cases being missed and also enables Court staff to list within the target dates.
8. What are the effects of this initiative? Please specify.
Improved PSA 4 performance
9. What could be the possible future modifications which might improve the results of this initiative?
None, we have taken it as far as we can.
10. Does this initiative have the support of the responsible public authorities in your country? If so, please give details.
No it is a local business initiative that is based upon the needs to achieve PSA 4 targets.
11. Do you believe this initiative to be usable in other courts in European states?
This much depends upon the Civil legal system of the European states. If there rules provide for cases to be listed within time parameters then the Civil listing system could be replicated.
IV. Concrete proposals from your court as regards optimum and foreseeable timeframes
12. Please, submit your comments or suggestions for a practical implementation, at the court level, of the Framework-Programme: "A new objective for judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe", in particular as regards some (or all) of the following proposals:
a. ensuring the transparency on timeframes for the users (see Line of Action 3: improving the foreseeability of the timeframes)
b. reducing queuing times (see Line of Action 4: defining and monitoring standards for an optimum timeframe for each type of case)
c. ensuring a systematic reasoning of court decisions and ensuring a prompt delivery of decisions to the parties (see Line of Action 9: acting on quality of proceedings)
d. selecting cases according to their complexity (see Line of Action 10: defining priorities in case management)
e. organising trials to reduce waiting time, while paying special attention to victims and witnesses (see Line of Action 11)
f. setting up a procedure to revive a pending case (see Line of Action 12)
g. organisation of the transmission of a case from a non competent court to the competent court (see Line of Action 13: making more flexible the rules on territorial jurisdiction of first instance courts)
h. setting up "contracts of objective" between courts and lawyers (see Line of Action 16: organising the relationships with lawyers)
i. enhancing the responsibility of judicial experts as regards judicial timeframes (see Line of Action 17: improving the monitoring of compliance with the time-limits by judicial experts)
j. involving judicial professions in the efforts towards optimum and foreseeable timeframes (Line of Action 18: defining the modalities for having bailiffs, clerks / Rechtspfleger, notaries and all other professions involved in justice)
13. Please, feel free to comment on any other proposals included in the Framework-Programme.
European Commission for the efficiency of justice (CEPEJ)
TASK FORCE ON TIMEFRAMES OF PROCEEDINGS (CEPEJ-TF-DEL)
3
17 March 2006
CEPEJ-TF-DEL (2005) 3 Rev 6
Table 1: Composition of the Network of Pilot-courts
(46 courts representing 35 member states)
|
Country |
Court |
Type of court |
Jurisdiction |
Judges |
Non-judge staff |
Cases addressed per year |
Total annual budget (in €) * = including all salaries |
Contact person |
|||||
|
Total |
Judicial assistants |
Other staff |
Civil (incl. family and commercial law) |
Administrative |
Criminal |
Other |
|||||||
|
Albania |
Disctrict Court of Tirana |
First instance |
General |
50 |
87 |
61 |
26 |
13.828 |
1.284 |
893.448* |
I. Mitro (Ministry of Justice) |
||
|
Albania |
Court of serious crime of Tirana |
First instance |
Serious crimes |
16 |
23 |
10 |
13 |
- |
- |
New body |
487.748* |
I. Mitro (Ministry of Justice) |
|
|
Andorra |
Civil Chmaber of the High Court of Justice |
Appeal |
Civil |
JL Vuillemin, (President) |
|||||||||
|
Armenia |
Court of Malatya-Bebastya (Yerevan) |
First instance |
General |
6 |
24 |
12 |
12 |
3.000 |
130 |
200 |
78.246* |
S. Mikaelyan (Judge) |
|
|
Azerbaijan |
Nasimi District Court |
First Instance |
General |
6 |
21 |
64,710 |
Aladdin Tafarov |
||||||
|
Azerbaijan |
Local Economic Court |
First Instance |
Specialised |
6 |
65,797 |
Saadet Bertashi |
|||||||
|
Austria |
Bezirksgericht Linz |
First instance |
General |
22 |
60 |
54 |
6 |
24.285 |
- |
1.518 |
31.845 (execution proceedings) |
No specific budget |
W. Engelberger (Gerichtsvorsteher) |
|
Bulgaria |
District Court of Burgas |
First instance and appeal |
General |
41 |
61 |
14 |
47 |
10.000 |
1.400 |
1.600 |
750.000* |
S. Nenkova Hristova |
|
|
Croatia |
Municipal court of Varazdin |
First instance |
General |
19 |
58 |
11 |
47 |
2.700 |
600 |
16.200 (land registry, execution, etc.) |
1.270.000* |
D. Kontrec (President) |
|
|
Cyprus |
Supreme Court of Cyprus (Nicosia) |
Higher Instance |
General |
13 |
72 |
13 |
13 |
338 |
336 |
1.668 (revision appeals, recourses, admiralty / prerogative writs/ electoral cases, references) |
26.894.508* |
(Chief Registrar) |
|
|
Czech Republic |
District Court of Prague 1 |
First instance |
General |
29 |
50 |
13 |
37 |
5.401 |
1.450 |
683.517 |
S. Bradacova |
||
|
Denmark |
District Court of Esbjerg |
First instance |
General |
3 |
29 |
24 |
5 |
1.941 |
2.328 |
52.258 (enforcement / probation cases, real estate) |
1.750.000* |
U. from Pedersen (Managing judge) |
|
|
Finland |
District Court of Turku |
First instance |
General |
30 |
59 |
30 |
10 |
8.500 |
3.000 |
7.000 (title registration, etc) |
5.074.000* |
T. Katajamäki (Judge) |
|
|
Finland |
Court of Appeal of Rovaniemi |
Appeal |
General |
13 |
29 |
20 |
9 |
203 |
733 |
65 |
3.313.193 * |
R. Supponen (Judge) |
|
|
Finland |
Regional administrative court of Turku |
Appeal |
Administrative |
18 |
34 |
21 |
13 |
2.500 |
3.370.000* |
H. Falck (Judge) |
|||
|
France |
Distric court of Angoulême |
First instance |
General |
G. Rolland, (President) |
|||||||||
|
France |
District Court of Lyon |
First Instance |
General |
X. Richaud, (Prosecutor) |
|||||||||
|
Germany |
Oberlandgericht Stuttgart |
Appeal |
General |
98 |
200 |
0 |
200 |
7.400 |
2.400 |
Budget of the Lan of Baden-Württemberg |
H. Meyer (Vice-President) |
||
|
Greece |
First instance court of Athens |
First instance (and appeal for specific cases) |
General |
341 (incl. 18 trainees) |
614 |
399 |
215 |
171.000 |
241.941 |
5.000 (divorce by mutual consent) |
Budget of the Ministry of Justice |
S. Pantazo- poulos (President) |
|
|
Greece |
Court of Appeal of Saloniki |
Appeal |
General |
66 |
86 |
60 |
26 |
3.500 |
|
6.500 |
Budget of the Ministry of Justice |
A. Tslaportas |
|
|
Hungary |
Municipal Court of Veszprem |
First instance or appeal (petty offences) |
General |
42 (incl. 11 trainees) |
86 |
11 |
75 |
8.874 |
2.917 |
2.142 (petty offences) |
No own budget |
A. Gröpler |
|
|
Iceland |
District court of Reykjavik |
First instance |
General |
21 |
26 |
12 |
14 |
n.a |
n.a |
n.a |
4.500.000* |
H. Jonsson |
|
|
Ireland |
Commercial court of Dublin (Division of the Irish High Court) |
First Instance |
Commercial |
2 |
2 |
2 |
- |
43 |
Budget of the Court Service |
K. O'Neill |
|||
|
Italy |
District Court of Torino |
First Instance |
General |
162 |
476 |
180 |
388 |
50.084 |
166.545 |
200.000 |
M. Barbuto, President |
||
|
Latvia |
Central District Court of Riga |
First instance |
General |
9 |
30 |
8 |
22 |
1.027 |
1.698 |
386 |
500.657* |
A. Karlsone |
|
|
Lithuania |
County Court of Vilnius |
First instance and appeal |
General |
48 |
122 |
59 |
63 |
1.579 |
375 |
2.977.000* |
A. Juozapavicius |
||
|
Lithuania |
Regional Administrative Court of Vilnius |
First intsance court |
Administrative |
20 |
49 |
32 |
17 |
4.077 |
1.294.202* |
Z. Smirnoviene |
|||
|
Luxembourg |
Administrative Court of Luxembourg |
First instance |
Administrative |
9 |
6 |
3 |
3 |
- |
1200 |
- |
- |
2.480.000* |
S. Schroeder |
|
Malta |
1st Hall Civil Court N° 2 |
First instance |
General (except for familiy cases) |
1 |
6 |
6 |
- |
396 |
- |
- |
General court budget |
Judge Caruana-Demajo |
|
|
Moldova |
Tribunal of the Rascani Sector (Chisinau) |
First instance |
General |
18 |
50 |
26 |
24 |
2.986 |
5.865 |
855 |
74.951* |
V. Micu |
|
|
Monaco |
Tribunal de Premier Instance |
First Instance |
B.Nardi |
||||||||||
|
Netherlands |
District Court of Arnhem |
First instance |
General |
100 |
350 |
125 |
225 |
75.000 |
5.700 |
30.000 |
2.000 (Tax law) |
30.000.000* |
R. Kolkman |
|
Norway |
Disctrict Court of Midhordland Tingrett |
First instance |
General |
7 (incl. 2 deputies) |
10 |
5 |
5 |
225 |
570 |
230 |
775.843* |
M.C. Greve (President) |
|
|
Norway |
Frostatink Lagmannsrett |
Appeal |
General |
17 |
18 |
13 |
5 |
355 |
820 |
2.750.000* |
O. Jakhelln (President) |
||
|
Portugal |
Court of Mafra |
First Instance |
General |
2 |
25 |
- |
25 |
5.015 |
1.783 |
114.448 |
C.S. Antunes |
||
|
Romania |
Departemental Court of Arges |
Appeal |
General |
31 |
43 |
33 |
10 |
6.000 |
1.000 |
3.000 |
- |
3.870.829* |
F. Ciorascu |
|
Russian Federation |
Regional Court of Kaluga |
Appeal and Cassation |
General |
35 |
61 |
29 |
32 |
2.511 |
121 |
2.334 |
1.257 (supervisory appeals) |
1.235.189* |
M. Vinogradov (Directorate of the President of the Russian Federation) |
|
Slovak Republic |
District Court of Bratislava |
First instance |
General |
35 |
138 |
121 |
17 |
6.162 (civil and commercial) |
22 |
547 |
2.019.180* |
Mariana |
|
|
Slovenia |
Disctrict Court of Novo Mesto |
First instance |
General |
10 |
41 |
3 |
38 |
1.023 |
- |
416 |
3.656.925* |
J. Grden (Secretary General) |
|
|
Slovenia |
Disctrict Court of Maribor |
First instance |
General |
28 |
115 |
9 |
106 |
3912 |
n.a |
n.a |
n.a |
A. Zadravec (President) |
|
|
Slovenia |
District Court of Nova Gorica |
First instance |
General |
13 |
47 |
7 |
40 |
816 |
- |
354 |
5.000.000* |
S. Turel (Court Secretary) |
|
|
Spain |
Commercial Court N° 3 of Barcelona |
First Instance |
Commercial |
1 |
9 |
1 |
8 |
600 |
Global budget for the courts |
M.A. Alameda Lopez (Master of the Court) and J.M. Fernandez Seijo (judge) |
|||
|
Sweden |
District Court of Huddinge |
First Instance |
General |
12 |
35 |
29 |
6 |
1.100 |
- |
2.200 |
1700 |
2.800.000* |
B. Björneke (Judge) |
|
FYROMacedonia |
Basic Court of Skopje 1 |
First Instance |
General + specialised (war crimes and labour) |
79 |
256 |
20 |
236 |
8.184 |
- |
2.387 |
159.716 |
2.383.155* |
D. Kacarska (President) |
|
United Kingdom |
London County Court |
Mike Burke |
|||||||||||
|
United Kingdom |
Manchester County Court |
S. Brooks |
|||||||||||
Appendix 1: Information Note and Questionnaire submitted to Pilot Courts
29 march 2005
NETWORK OF PILOT-COURTS OF THE
European Commission for the efficiency of justice
(CEPEJ)
Information note and questionnaire
for the courts
1. Role of the CEPEJ Network of Pilot-courts
The CEPEJ is setting up a Network of Pilot-courts from European States to:
· support its activities through a better understanding of the day to day functioning of courts and
· to highlight best practices which could be presented to policy makers in European States in order to improve the efficiency of judicial systems.
The Network will primarily be involved in the implementation of the CEPEJ Framework Programme “A new objective for judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe” (CEPEJ (2004) 19 Rev).
The CEPEJ will rely on the Network to promote innovative time-reduction and time-management projects introduced by courts. Compendia of best practices will be prepared using the information provided by the Pilot-courts.
2. Tasks of the Pilot-courts
Pilot-courts of the CEPEJ Network will be regularly consulted by the Council of Europe Secretariat and the CEPEJ, in particular on the relevant Lines of Action of the Framework Programme.
Pilot-courts will be invited to answer questionnaires on their practice regarding judicial organisation and judicial procedures in respect of timeframes.
They will be invited to provide detailed information and, when appropriate, relevant documents, within an appropriate time, so that this information can be taken into account to prepare public policy tools which could be used by member States.
Representatives of the Pilot-courts might be invited by the Secretariat to meet in Strasbourg (or other places), when appropriate. If necessary, they might also be invited to participate in specific CEPEJ meetings or seminars.
3. Criteria for membership of the CEPEJ Network of Pilot-courts
Pilot-courts can be first instance or higher instance courts in civil, administrative or criminal matters.
They should be in a position to assume a leading role in the field of optimum and foreseeable judicial timeframes in their country. It would be desirable that the Pilot-courts have a successful experience as regards the monitoring and management of judicial timeframes.
Pilot-courts should be available to cooperate concretely and regularly with the CEPEJ and its Task Force on timeframes of procedures, in liaison with the CEPEJ member in their country.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
Network of Pilot-courts
Member state: ______________________________
Submitted by: ______________________________
(name)
______________________________
pROPOSED court (Name): ______________________________
address: ______________________________
______________________________
Contact person: ______________________________
tel: ______________________________
E-mail: ______________________________
***
DESCRIPTION OF YOUR COURT
Please specify if your court is
a court of first instance or a higher instance court:
____________________________________________________________
a court of general jurisdiction or a specialised court (please specify):
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Please describe the structure of your court, in particular the number of specialised chambers:
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
What is the average volume and the nature (civil, commercial, administrative, criminal, etc.) of the cases addressed each year in your court?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Please describe the composition of the court judicial and non judicial staff
Number of judges: __________
If appropriate, number of prosecutors attached to the court: __________
Number of non judge administrative staff: __________
If possible, could you categorise between:
§ non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges (case file preparation, assistance during the hearing, keeping the minutes of the meetings, helping to prepare the decisions) such as registrars: __________
§ staff in charge of different administrative tasks as well as of the management of the courts (human resources management, material and equipment management, financial management, etc): __________
§ technical staff and staff in charge of maintenance functions: __________
Annual budget of the court (in €): ____________________________________
Does this amount include salaries? YES – NO
If yes, does it include salaries for the whole staff or for the non judicial staff only?
____________________________________________________________
Please return this form, through the national member of the CEPEJ, by 1 May 2005 to:
Secretariat of the CEPEJ
DG I – Legal Affairs, Council of Europe, F – 67075 Strasbourg
e-mail: [email protected] or fax: + 33 3 88 41 37 43.
The Secretariat will then contact you as regards the attached questionnaire.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
Network of Pilot-Courts
QUESTIONNAIRE
I. The situation of the judicial timeframes in your court
If appropriate, please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases in civil and administrative matter.
|
Civil cases |
Administrative cases |
Divorce |
Employment dismissal |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
||||
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
||||
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
||||
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
||||
|
Average length of proceedings (from date of filing the case to the court*) |
* If you cannot calculate the average length from the date of filing the case to the court, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
If appropriate, criminal cases in courts – please complete this table concerning the number of cases/length of proceedings/pending cases and specify definitions of incoming cases, starting and ending point of timeframes and pending cases:
|
Criminal cases |
Robbery cases |
Intentional homicide |
|
|
Annual number of incoming cases |
|||
|
Annual number of judicial decisions |
|||
|
Annual number of convicted persons |
|||
|
Annual number of acquitted persons |
|||
|
Number of pending cases (not completed in the year) |
|||
|
Number of pending cases of more than 3 years |
|||
|
Average length of proceedings (from the date of official charging*) |
* If it is not possible to calculate the average length from the date of official charging, how do you calculate length of proceedings?
Do you have a way of analysing queuing time (time in which nothing happens with the case) during court procedures? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Do you have an internal procedure for evaluating and monitoring lengths of proceedings? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Do you have indicators of performance and targets as regards timeframes of procedures? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
II. The relations between your court and the users of justice
Does your court have users’ or legal professionals’ surveys to measure public trust and satisfaction with the services delivered by the court? YES/NO
If yes, please specify:
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
III. Specific initiatives carried on within your court as regards timeframes of procedure[29]
Does your court have practical experience in monitoring or reducing judicial timeframes? Has it in particular developed one or several specific initiatives in this field? Please specify.
What are the effects of this initiative? Please specify.
What could be the possible future modifications which might improve the results of this initiative?
Does this initiative have the support of the responsible public authorities in your country? If so, please give details.
Do you believe this initiative to be usable in other courts in European states?
IV. Concrete proposals from your court as regards optimum and foreseeable timeframes
Please, submit your comments or suggestions for a practical implementation, at the court level, of the Framework-Programme: "A new objective for judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe", in particular as regards some (or all) of the following proposals:
ensuring the transparency on timeframes for the users (see Line of Action 3: improving the foreseeability of the timeframes)
reducing queuing times (see Line of Action 4: defining and monitoring standards for an optimum timeframe for each type of case)
ensuring a systematic reasoning of court decisions and ensuring a prompt delivery of decisions to the parties (see Line of Action 9: acting on quality of proceedings)
selecting cases according to their complexity (see Line of Action 10: defining priorities in case management)
organising trials to reduce waiting time, while paying special attention to victims and witnesses (see Line of Action 11)
setting up a procedure to revive a pending case (see Line of Action 12)
organisation of the transmission of a case from a non competent court to the competent court (see Line of Action 13: making more flexible the rules on territorial jurisdiction of first instance courts)
setting up "contracts of objective" between courts and lawyers (see Line of Action 16: organising the relationships with lawyers)
enhancing the responsibility of judicial experts as regards judicial timeframes (see Line of Action 17: improving the monitoring of compliance with the time-limits by judicial experts)
involving judicial professions in the efforts towards optimum and foreseeable timeframes (Line of Action 18: defining the modalities for having bailiffs, clerks / Rechtspfleger, notaries and all other professions involved in justice)
Please, feel free to comment on any other proposals included in the Framework-Programme.
[1] These figures include also suits on the compensation of salary.
[2] Please reply on separate sheets.
[3] Veuillez répondre en utilisant des feuilles additionnelles
[5] Please reply on separate sheets.
[6] Please reply on separate sheets.
[7] Please reply on separate sheets.
[8] Please reply on separate sheets.
[9] Please reply on separate sheets.
[10] Please reply on separate sheets.
[11] Please reply on separate sheets.
[12] Please reply on separate sheets.
[13] Please reply on separate sheets.
[14] Please reply on separate sheets.
[15] Please reply on separate sheets.
[16] Veuillez répondre en utilisant des feuilles additionnelles
[17] Please reply on separate sheets.
[18] Veuillez répondre en utilisant des feuilles additionnelles
[19] Please reply on separate sheets.
[20] Please reply on separate sheets.
[21] Please reply on separate sheets.
[22] Please reply on separate sheets.
[23] Please reply on separate sheets.
[24] Please reply on separate sheets.
[25] Please reply on separate sheets.
[26] Please reply on separate sheets.
[27] Please reply on separate sheets.
[28] Please reply on separate sheets
[29] Please reply on separate sheets.