Strasbourg, 22 December 2008
CEPEJ(2008)14
European commission for the efficiency of justice (CEPEJ)
12th plenary meeting, Strasbourg, 10 - 11 December 2008 - Meeting report
Report prepared by the Secretariat
Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs
|
MAIN DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE CEPEJ The CEPEJ: § noted with great satisfaction the excellent welcome by the Committee of Ministers to the Report "European judicial systems – Edition 2008" as well as the large echoes given to this Report in several member states, both among policy makers and justice practitioners and in the media; § recalled that the Report must be presented and analysed while fully taking into account the methodological information that it includes, namely when comparing information from various member states, invited the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL to propose modalities which enable to present data of comparable countries within the framework of the next evaluation cycles and invited the national correspondents to indicate to the Secretariat the countries they think they can be compared to on elements to be defined; § invited its members to disseminate the Report to the competent authorities and judicial professional of their country, in particular in facilitating its translation, where appropriate, and to forward as soon as possible to the Secretariat, information on the use of the Report by the authorities of their countries as well as press articles written on a national level that concern the Report; § decided to pursue the in-depth analyse of the Report, as follows : - instructed the CPEJ-GT-EVAL to achieve within this group a study on the general organisation of courts and the judicial map; - decided to launch calls for projects to external researchers who might benefit from a CEPEJ label on the basis of a specific protocol, on the following themes : single judge and panels of judges in Europe– possibly in collaboration with the European Association of Judges and MEDEL ; the role of lawyers in judicial proceedings in Europe – possibly in collaboration with the CCBE ; the organisation of court clerk offices in the European judicial systems – possibly in collaboration with the UER; it instructed the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL to manage this process, under the authority of the Bureau, while ensuring the proper coordination with the other working groups; - furthermore agreed to hold a study session in 2009 on the financing of courts, in view of possible further in-depth work of the CEPEJ, taking account Opinion No. 2 of the CCJE on funding and management of courts; § reiterated its invitation to member states, who wish to do so, to send updated judicial data concerning the year 2007, on the basis of “Key data on Justice in Europe” (CEPEJ(2007)27); § decided to launch the next evaluation process in 2009 on the basis of data for the year 2008, in view of the publication of a new report during 2010, while taking into account the specific difficulties of the federal states for data collection; § instructed the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL to bring the necessary modifications to the evaluation scheme and the explanatory note thereto, while ensuring as far as possible the stability of this scheme; entrusted the Secretariat to bring the necessary improvements to the electronic version of the questionnaire and to organise appropriate modalities for the implementation of this new evaluation cycle; § decided to pursue the peer evaluation cooperation process on judicial statistics, through the organisation of three further visits in 2009, which would namely take into account the Guidelines on judicial statistics (GOJUST), and entrusted its Bureau to study the candidatures from member states forwarded to the Secretariat before 15 January 2009 so as to set up a programme for the visits; § adopted the "CEPEJ Guidelines on judicial statistics (GOJUST)" (CEPEJ(2008)11) and decided to submit them to the Committee of Ministers so that it can take note of them; it invited its members to disseminate them widely to national correspondents responsible for collecting the CEPEJ statistical data, to the central services competent for judicial statistics as well as to the relevant bodies within the courts of their countries and to facilitate their translation, where appropriate; § adopted the "SATURN Guidelines for judicial time management (EUGMONT)" (CEPEJ(2008)8) and decided to submit them to the Committee of Ministers so that it can take note f it and invited its members to disseminate them widely to policy makers and courts of their countries and to facilitate their translation, where appropriate; § agreed that the SATURN Centre aims to evolve progressively towards a European observatory on judicial timeframes and instructed the Steering Group of the Centre to continue its work in this spirit; § invited its members to ensure wide dissemination of the “Checklist for promoting the quality of justice and courts” among the policy makers and in the courts of their countries and to facilitate their translation, where appropriate; § supported the ongoing work within the CEPEJ-GT-QUAL and invited it to finalise in 2009 a study on the quality systems in Europe, guidelines on the contractualisation of judicial proceedings and a handbook on the satisfaction surveys aimed at court users of justice, including if possible models of questionnaire; § welcomed the conclusions of the 3rd plenary meeting of the Network of Pilot Courts (Court of Appeal of Catania, Italy, 24 October 2008) and invited its members as well as the Pilot Courts to implement in 2009 the conclusions adopted during this meeting (CEPEJ(2008)12); § welcomed the proposal of the Court of Appeal of Catania to dedicate, within the Network of Pilot Courts, exchange views on issues of specific interest to the second instance courts and agreed to consider any proposal which could be submitted to it in this regard; § noted the ongoing cooperation with Bulgaria on the criteria for categorisation of courts and for evaluating individual judges; agreed to cooperate with Portugal to assess the policy to facilitate the case flow management and to fight court backlogs and the policy for dematerialised proceedings and the use of ICT in the field of justice; agreed to cooperate with Malta to assess the efficiency of the functioning of its judicial system; agreed to cooperate with Armenia for the allocation of cases to courts; it instructed its Bureau to arrange the details of such activities; § welcomed the ongoing cooperation between the courts of appeal of Rome and Paris and stressed its interest in being kept informed of the results of the comparative studies conducted between these two courts; § agreed to appoint an expert who would participate as an observer in the work of the Group of Specialists for child-friendly justice and the work of the Group of Specialists on justice; § adopted its of Activity Programme for 2009 (CEPEJ(2008)10); § invited the member states, through the CEPEJ members, where appropriate, to propose to the Secretariat by 15 January 2009 qualified experts to participate in the working groups and entrusted its Bureau to appoint members of these working groups taking into account these proposals; § took note of the activities carried out in 2008 by the Justice Forum and reiterated its full disposal to pursue its cooperation with the Forum in 2009, including within the framework of the organisation of the « Crystal Scales of Justice » in the criminal law field; § invited its members to promote the European Day of Justice in their country and to propose to the Secretariat to organise the main event of this Day in 2009 ; § re-elected for a two year period the following Bureau: - President: Mr Fausto de SANTIS (Italy) - Vice-President: Mr John STACEY (United Kingdom) - Member of the Bureau: Ms Elsa GARCIA MALTRAS de BLAS (Spain) - Member of the Bureau: Ms Ivana BORZOVA (Czech Republic). |
1. The European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) held its 12th plenary meeting at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, on 10 and 11 December 2008. The meeting was chaired by Mr Fausto de SANTIS (Italy), President of the CEPEJ.
2. The agenda and the list of participants are set out in Appendices I and II respectively.
1. Opening of the meeting
3. The meeting was opened by Ms Margaret KILLERBY, Director of Legal cooperation, who stressed the paramount role of the CEPEJ in implementing the fundamental principles and priority activities of the Council of Europe in the sphere of the Rule of law.
2. Information from the President and members of the CEPEJ and the Secretariat
4. The President reported on the exchange of views with the Rapporteur Group on legal cooperation of the Ministers' Deputies (GR-J) on 23 September 2008. The 2007 Activity report of the CEPEJ had been approved. The Ministers' Deputies had unanimously "welcomed" the "Report on European judicial systems – 2008 edition"; they had also emphasised the quality of the work, approved of the method used and recognised that the report was most useful in connection with judicial reforms in the member States. In their eyes, it represented a key contribution by the CEPEJ to the Council of Europe's major objectives in the area of the Rule of law. Some participants had also stressed that it would be useful to repeat the exercise on a regular basis with a view to refining the findings and assessing the trends in judicial systems.
5. Fausto de SANTIS also informed the members that the Report had been presented to the Italian Court of cassation and the activities of the CEPEJ had been discussed in several legal forums in Italy (Rome, Catania, Turin). The Minister of Justice had clearly stated his wish to draw on the work of the CEPEJ to steer reforms of Italy's judicial system.
6. Pim ALBERS reported on the different meetings in which he had participated in the capacity of special adviser to the Secretariat of the CEPEJ:
§ launch of the Court excellence Forum (Sydney, Australia, 20-23 September, Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration), where he had described the initiatives geared to the quality of justice in Europe;
§ presentation of quality systems in Europe in the framework of the Working Group of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (Copenhagen, Denmark, 9-10 October)
§ presentation of the CEPEJ evaluation report at the World Bank seminar (Sofia, Bulgaria, 7 October) and at the Ministry of Justice of the Netherlands (The Hague, 27 October)
§ presentation, in the World Bank framework, of the findings of the CEPEJ evaluation process for the countries of South-East Europe by video-conference (25 November), linking up with Washington DC, Brussels, Skopje and Belgrade [and with Zagreb on 15 December].
7. The Secretary of the CEPEJ said that the CEPEJ Report had also been presented and discussed at a colloquy on "Municipal councillorship and economic justice" held at the Faculty of law in Strasbourg (10 October).
4. Recent developments in the judicial field in Council of Europe member States
8. In a round-table discussion several delegations (Albania, Armenia, Croatia, Georgia, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Moldova, Norway, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovakia, "the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", United Kingdom) highlighted the main reforms and/or discussions under way in their respective countries in the judicial field. Their information is available on the CEPEJ website[1]. CEPEJ members were asked to provide the Secretariat as soon as possible with written information and any useful references so that these could be posted on the website under “country profiles”.
5. Evaluation of European judicial systems process
Report on European judicial systems – 2008 edition
9. The report had been made public on 8 October at a press conference in Paris, in which Fausto de SANTIS and Jean-Paul JEAN and also the Secretariat (Philippe BOILLAT and Stéphane LEYENBERGER) had taken part.
10. The event had been widely reported in major European media, and the report had been widely disseminated to judicial bodies in numerous member States.
11. In a round-table discussion several member States said that the report had been discussed in the media (inter alia in Andorra, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Czech Republic, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Switzerland) and in political bodies such as the ministry of justice, parliament, political parties or judicial bodies such as councils of justice or professional associations (inter alia in Andorra, Bosnia & Herzegovina, France, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Netherlands, Switzerland, "the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", Turkey). Several States said that the report was being directly studied in connection with judicial reforms (inter alia Italy, Latvia, Malta, Netherlands, "the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia").
12. Several delegations stressed that the report had gained in stability and credibility and that it was now part of the indispensable data for analysing justice for both justice professionals and the media.
13. However, some delegations regretted that it had sometimes been presented in a simplified manner in the media in order to highlight the shortcomings of systems, using data taken out of context or not backed up by comments and explanations of methodology which did appear in the report.
14. The President of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL, Jean-Paul JEAN, presented work analysing the report on the basis of data of countries that were comparable in terms of judicial, economic and demographic characteristics[2]. He reminded the members that the report had to be presented and analysed with full account taken of the methodological guidance it contained, including when information from different member States was compared. The CEPEJ-GT-EVAL was asked to propose ways of presenting the data from comparable countries during the next evaluation cycles. In addition, the national correspondents were asked to notify the Secretariat of which countries they thought they could be compared with for given components.
15. The issue of access to the report and its widest possible use arose via the problem of translation. Several States had translated or decided to translate all or part of the report (inter alia Germany, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, Italy, Latvia, "the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", Turkey). Italy said that the different judicial professions had handled the translation of sections of the report relating to them; the Italian version would be officially presented in February 2009. The Ministry of Justice of Turkey had devoted webpages in Turkish on its internet site to the CEPEJ.
16. The CEPEJ asked its members to ensure that the Report was disseminated as appropriate to the competent authorities and legal professions in their countries, in particular by facilitating its translation where necessary. It also asked them to send information to the Secretariat as soon as possible on how the report had been used by their countries' authorities as well as any national press articles featuring the Report.
Preparation of in-depth studies
17. The President of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL recalled that the knowledge phase culminating in the publication of the Evaluation report had to be followed by an analysis phase in which certain questions concerning the functioning of justice could be considered in-depth on the basis of the information in the report.
18. The CEPEJ decided to follow the recommendations of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL and carry out the following specific studies, to be published in 2009 in the "CEPEJ Studies" series:
§ the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL was invited to carry out a study on the organisation of courts and the judicial map;
§ calls for projects to external researchers who would benefit from a CEPEJ label on the basis of a specific protocol for research, on the following themes:
- single-judge courts and collegiality; the European Association of Judges and MEDEL said that they were willing to cooperate in this study;
- the role of lawyers in judicial procedures; the CCBE said that it was willing to cooperate in this study;
- the organisation of registries; the EUR said that it was willing to cooperate in this study;
19. The CEPEJ instructed the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL to manage this process, under the authority of the Bureau, ensuring coordination with the other working groups concerned, notably the SATURN Centre steering group.
20. On a proposal by the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL, the CEPEJ also agreed to organise a study session in 2009 on the funding of courts, potentially for more in-depth study at a later date by the CEPEJ. In this connection, CCJE opinion no. 2 on the funding and management of courts would be taken into account.
Interim process using the list of key data
21. Frans Van der DOELEN (Netherlands) recalled that the CEPEJ had adopted a list of key data (CEPEJ(2007)27) enabling volunteer States to update certain data between two evaluation exercises. The member States were invited to forward the key data for 2007 to the Secretariat, using this simplified scheme. The data would be published, without specific analysis, on the CEPEJ website.
New evaluation cycle
22. On behalf of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL, Frans Van der DOELEN recommended that the evaluation process be pursued on the same biennial basis, using a stabilised evaluation scheme that would aid progress in analysing trends in national judicial systems through statistical series. The working group recommended that changes to the evaluation scheme be kept to a minimum and that shortcomings noted in the electronic version of the questionnaire be remedied.
23. The CEPEJ member in respect of Germany reiterated the difficulties faced by federal States in gathering data and stressed that it was unlikely that his country could carry out a new evaluation exercise in 2010. Several CEPEJ members said that they understood Germany's difficulties but emphasised that the permanent nature of the process relied on the stability of its components. They pointed out that the process was now facilitated by the stability of the questionnaire (for which a German translation already existed) and the possibility of replying using an electronic questionnaire specially adapted for federal States. They therefore insisted that Germany participate in the next cycle, at least where the key data were concerned. The President of the CEPEJ proposed that Germany be a candidate to host a peer evaluation visit in 2009, which might help to facilitate the process.
24. The CEPEJ decided to launch the next evaluation process in 2009 on the basis of 2008 data, with a view to publishing a new report in 2010, while bearing in mind the difficulties faced by federal States in gathering the data. It instructed the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL to make the changes to the evaluation scheme that were strictly necessary and to supplement and reinforce the explanatory note to increase the likelihood of national correspondents interpreting the questions in a similar way.
Cooperation process using peer evaluation
25. Adis HODZIC (Bosnia & Herzegovina) reviewed the three visits by experts to France, Poland and Bosnia & Herzegovina in 2008 as part of the pilot process of evaluation by peers of statistical systems. The consensus was that these visits were useful for reinforcing the credibility of the CEPEJ evaluation process and cooperating with member States to ensure coherency between the statistical needs of the CEPEJ and those of the member States.
26. Given the positive experience of the pilot process, the CEPEJ decided to pursue the process by organising three new visits in 2009, which would draw inter alia on the CEPEJ Guidelines on judicial statistics (GOJUST). Portugal, Malta and Russia put forward their candidatures. Norway and Germany also showed interest. It was agreed that other candidates could come forward by 15 January 2009. The Bureau would draw up the programme of visits accordingly.
CEPEJ Guidelines on judicial statistics (GOJUST)
27. Georg STAWA (Austria) presented the draft guidelines prepared by the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL.
28. The European Association of Judges endorsed the document. The representative of the CCJE stressed the importance of judicial statistics being managed by councils of the judiciary.
29. The members of the CEPEJ discussed and amended the draft and adopted the "CEPEJ Guidelines on judicial statistics – GOJUST" (CEPEJ(2008)11). The CEPEJ decided to submit them to the Committee of Ministers so that it could take note of them. It invited its members to disseminate them widely to national correspondents, central services competent for judicial statistics and the competent bodies in the courts of their respective countries and to facilitate their translation where necessary.
6. SATURN Centre for judicial time management
30. The Chair of the Steering group of the SATURN Centre, Jacques BÜHLER, described the spirit and outcome of collaboration between the Group and the CEPEJ Network of Pilot Courts to devise and test a tool for analysing judicial time management. In particular he presented the report prepared by the scientific experts, Marco FABRI and Domenico PISCITELLI, on the basis of replies from the pilot courts[3]. These findings had been discussed with the pilot courts at their 3rd plenary meeting (Catania, 24 October 2008).
31. The CEPEJ analysed and amended the draft guidelines for judicial time management (EUGMONT) prepared by the steering group. Several experts welcomed the harmonisation work carried out by the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL on the GOJUST guidelines and by the SATURN steering group in connection with the EUGMONT guidelines, particularly through the incorporation of appendices common to both texts on case categories and the ratios to be targeted as a priority as well as examples of synopses that could be kept by courts.
32. The CEPEJ adopted the "SATURN Centre guidelines for judicial time management (EUGMONT)" (CEPEJ(2008)8) and decided to submit them to the Committee of Ministers so that it could take note of them. It invited its members to disseminate them widely to public decision-makers and courts in their respective countries and to facilitate their translation where necessary.
33. The CEPEJ agreed that the SATURN Centre was set to gradually evolve into a European observatory of judicial timeframes and instructed the Centre's steering group to pursue its efforts along these lines. One of its tasks in this respect would be to test the use of the tables appended to the guidelines among pilot courts and refine the methods for measuring the beginning and end of procedures.
7. Quality of justice
34. The President of the CEPEJ-GT-QUAL, François PAYCHERE, stressed that the members of the CEPEJ had the responsibility of ensuring that the "Checklist for promoting the quality of justice and courts" was effectively disseminated to the judicial bodies in their respective countries, and organising the translation of this tool where necessary.
35. He also noted that this document could very well be used in conjunction with other documents, such as CCJE Opinion no. 11 on the quality of judicial decisions and Study no. 4 in the "CEPEJ Studies" series which focused on that subject. Some members asked the CEPEJ-GT-QUAL to consider the expediency of supplementing this Checklist in connection with CCJE Opinion no. 11.
36. He also said that the CEPEJ-GT-QUAL would produce, by the end of 2009:
§ a study of quality systems in Europe;
§ guidelines on the contractualisation of judicial process; the aim was, on the one hand, to gain a better understanding of practices whereby the management of certain judicial procedures was assigned to the parties (not to be confused with mediation or conciliation) and, on the other hand, to study contractual relations between the State and the courts (contracts of objectives); this work would be coordinated with the SATURN Centre steering group;
§ a handbook for developing court user satisfaction surveys, including, if possible, model questionnaires.
8. CEPEJ Network of Pilot Courts
37. The Vice-President of the CEPEJ, John STACEY, reported on the 3rd plenary meeting of the Network of Pilot Courts held in Catania (Italy) on 24 October 2008, within the framework of European Day of Justice (see document CEPEJ(2008)9). The CEPEJ expressed its heartfelt thanks to the Court of Appeal of Catania and the Italian Ministry of Justice for their excellent organisation of the meeting and of the Crystal Scales award ceremony that had followed (see below).
38. The President of the CEPEJ, Fausto de SANTIS, said that, at the initiative of the Court of Appeal of Catania, a meeting of a working group of the Network, made up of second-instance courts, had been held on 25 October, with the aim of identifying questions of common interest to these courts. The Court of Appeal of Catania had proposed that these exchanges of views specific to second- instance courts be made a permanent fixture. The CEPEJ agreed to study proposals put to it along these lines.
39. Elsa GARCIA MALTRAS de BLAS (Spain) stressed the need to involve more and more pilot courts in CEPEJ activities. In particular, she emphasised the network's role in disseminating the work of the CEPEJ to judicial bodies in the member States or facilitating translation. She presented the conclusions on operational cooperation adopted during the meeting (see document CEPEJ(2008)12), which would enable the pilot courts to make a useful contribution to the implementation of the 2009 Programme of activities of the CEPEJ.
9. Targeted cooperation with the member States
40. The CEPEJ member in respect of Bulgaria informed the Committee that a group of CEPEJ experts would visit Sofia at the end of January 2009 to consider criteria for categorising courts, evaluating court workloads and individually assessing judges.
41. The CEPEJ member in respect of Portugal confirmed that the Bureau of the CEPEJ had been in favour of carrying out two evaluations before summer 2009, one of the policy aimed at facilitating management of case-flows and tackling the backlog in the courts and the other of the policy aimed at computerisation of judicial procedures and ITC use in the sphere of justice. Meetings of experts would be organised in Lisbon in early 2009, and two reports would then be submitted to the CEPEJ at its 13th plenary meeting. Portugal would finance these activities.
42. The CEPEJ member in respect of Malta requested CEPEJ cooperation to evaluate the functioning of its judicial system. Where appropriate, this activity could be combined with a judicial statistics peer evaluation visit.
43. The CEPEJ member in respect of Armenia requested CEPEJ cooperation concerning the allocation of cases between courts.
44. The CEPEJ decided to carry out these activities in 2009 and instructed its Bureau to make the necessary arrangements.
45. The CEPEJ members in respect of France and Italy informed the Committee of ongoing cooperation between the appeal courts of Rome and Paris, inter alia for a comparative study of their statistical data. The CEPEJ welcomed this cooperation and wished to be kept informed of the findings of the comparative studies run between these two eminent European courts.
10. 2009 Programme of activities of the CEPEJ
46. Nikola PROKOPENKO ("the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia") presented the draft 2009 Programme of activities of the CEPEJ as drawn up by the Bureau.
47. The CEPEJ adopted its programme of activities for 2009 (CEPEJ(2008)10). It invited the member States, through the members of the CEPEJ, to propose experts qualified to participate in the different working groups to the Secretariat by 15 January 2009 and instructed its Bureau to appoint the members of these working groups in the light of those proposals. It was agreed that the Working group on execution (CEPEJ-GT-EXE) would be set up by mid-January, given the early date of its first meeting (29 – 30 January 2009).
48. One delegation emphasised the importance of the new information technologies in the functioning of justice and proposed that it be considered how the CEPEJ could carry out more in-depth work on this theme in the future.
11. Relations between the CEPEJ and other Council of Europe bodies
49. The representative of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE), Gerhard REISSNER, informed the CEPEJ that CCJE Opinion no. 11 on the quality of judicial decisions would shortly be adopted (see para. 35 above). In addition, he regretted that it had not been possible to complete the process of revising Recommendation Rec(94)12 on the independence, efficiency and role of judges in 2008 and reiterated the CCJE's desire to be involved in this work placed under the responsibility of the CDCJ. Finally, he informed the Committee of the forthcoming joint activities of the CCJE and the CCPE on relations between judges and prosecutors and would be grateful to the CEPEJ for supplying first-rate information obtained through the evaluation of judicial systems to assist this work.
50. The President of the CCPE, Olivier de BAYNAST, presented Opinions no. 2 (2008) on alternatives to prosecution and no. 3 (2008) on the role of prosecutors outside the criminal law field. He also looked forward to cooperating with the CCJE on the preparation of a joint opinion in 2009, for which the work of the CEPEJ would be most valuable.
51. The Secretary of the CDCJ said that work on revising Recommendation Rec(94)12 would resume in 2009 in the framework of an enlarged Group of specialists (CJ-S-JUD); the CEPEJ and the CCJE would be able to appoint a representative in an observer capacity. Work would also begin in the area of child-friendly justice, following up the Resolution adopted by the Ministers of Justice at their 28th Conference. The next Ministerial Conference would be held in Tromsø (Norway) on 18 and 19 June 2009.
52. The representative of the CDPC, Mr Nikola MATOVSKI, confirmed his steering committee's interest in the activities of the CEPEJ.
53. The Secretariat said that the Lisbon Network had held its last plenary meeting on the theme of "Training of judges and prosecutors in media and the judiciary".
12. Cooperation with the European Union
54. On behalf of the outgoing and incoming European Union Presidencies, the CEPEJ members in respect of France, Jean-Paul SUDRE, and the Czech Republic, Ivana BORZOVA, took stock of and looked ahead to the prospects for the judicial field within the European Union (see Appendix III).
55. The Secretariat reiterated the involvement of the CEPEJ in the European Union's Justice Forum, through its participation in the plenary meetings and working groups.
56. The Secretariat informed the CEPEJ that the "Crystal Scales" had been awarded within the framework of European Day of Justice in Catania (Italy) on 24 October 2008. The prize had been awarded to ''Her Majesty’s Courts Service'' (United Kingdom) for the Small claims mediation scheme initiative, which offered the parties swift, simple and free mediation for settling small claims. Three other projects had received a special mention: the Bar of Paris (France) for the "Bar of Paris Solidarity Bus"; the Milan Court (Italy) for the computerised civil lawsuits office; the Ministry of Justice of Turkey for the National Judiciary Informatics System (UYAP). These initiatives were described in detail on the CEPEJ website: www.coe.int/cepej.
57. The next plenary meeting of the Justice Forum (summer 2009) would provide an opportunity to award the "Crystal Scales" for the first time in the criminal justice field. The CEPEJ welcomed this initiative, intended to include both civil and criminal law in efforts to improve the functioning of justice.
58. The Secretariat pointed out that fifteen or so member States had reported organising specific events marking European Day of Justice 2008. The members of the CEPEJ were asked to take a more active role in extending the Day of Justice to other member States. They were also invited to propose a flagship event for the European Day in 2009.
13. Observers with the CEPEJ
59. The CEPEJ took note of the information passed on by its Observers, inviting them to forward it to the Secretariat so that it could be posted on the website.
60. The delegation of the European Union of Rechtspfleger solemnly presented the President of the CEPEJ with the "Green paper on Rechtspfleger/greffiers", aimed at promoting judicial cooperation in Europe and making courts more efficient and closer to citizens (see Appendix IV).
61. In the light of the information provided by the Secretariat on the European Criminal Bar Association, the CEPEJ held unanimously that this organisation did not adequately meet the criteria to be granted observer status with the CEPEJ. It did not federate professional organisations of different member States, it was restricted to European Union Member States and each of those countries was represented by no more than ten people in an individual capacity. The CEPEJ stressed that its decision did not in any way question the merits and relevance of this body's work, and it was willing to work with the ECBA on a case-by-case basis, where applicable.
14. Election of Bureau members
62. The CEPEJ unanimously re-elected the Bureau for a two-year term, as follows:
§ President of the CEPEJ: Mr Fausto de SANTIS (Italy)
§ Vice-President of the CEPEJ: Mr John STACEY (United Kingdom)
§ Bureau Member: Mrs Ivana BORZOVA (Czech Republic)
§ Bureau Member: Mrs Elsa GARCIA MALTRAS de BLAS (Spain)
Appendix I
AGENDA
1. Opening of the meeting
2. Adoption of the agenda
3. Information by the President of the CEPEJ and the Secretariat
4. Recent developments in the judicial field in the Council of Europe Member states
5. Evaluation of European judicial systems (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL)
i. Report on “European judicial systems – Edition 2008”
1. Tour de table: communication on and use of the Report in the member states
2. Preparation of in-depth studies
Rapporteur: Jean-Paul JEAN, Chair of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL
ii. Continuation of the evaluation cycle
Rapporteur: Frans Van der DOELEN (Netherlands)
1. Intermediary process through the list of key data
2. New evaluation cycle
iii. Implementation of the pilot peer evaluation co-operation process
Rapporteur: Adis HODZIC (Bosnia and Herzegovina)
iv. Draft CEPEJ guidelines on judicial statistics: discussion with a view to its adoption
Rapporteur: Georg STAWA (Austria)
6. SATURN Centre on judicial time management
Rapporteur: Jacques BÜHLER, Chair of the Steering group
i. Discussion of the draft “SATURN guidelines for judicial time management” with a view to their adoption
ii. Follow up tot the work: Towards a European Observatory of judicial timeframes
7. Quality of justice (CEPEJ-GT-QUAL)
Rapporteur: François PAYCHERE (Switzerland)
i. Use of the Checklist for promoting the quality of the judiciary and courts
ii. Study on the quality systems in Europe
iii. Contractualisation of judicial proceedings
iv. Assessing the users’ satisfaction
8. CEPEJ Network of Pilot Courts
i. 3rd plenary meeting of the Network, Catania (Italy), 24 October 2008
Rapporteur: John STACEY (United Kingdom)
ii. Specific group of pilot appeal courts (initiative of Italy)
Rapporteur: Fausto DE SANTIS (Italy)
iii. How to improve the involvement of the Network members ?
Rapporteur: Elsa GARCIA MALTRAS de BLAS (Spain)
9. Targeted co-operation of the CEPEJ with Member states
i. Bulgaria: criteria for the classification of courts and criteria for evaluating individual judges (1st expert meeting on 21 and 22 January 2009)
ii. Portugal:
a. policies to ease procedural flows and fight backlogs
b. dematerialization and use of IT in the justice field
iii. France / Italy: comparisons of the courts of appeal of Rome and Paris
iv. Malta: evaluation of the efficiency of the justice system
v. Other proposals for 2009
10. Discussion of the draft Activity programme of the CEPEJ for 2009 in view of its adoption
Rapporteur: Nikola PROKOPENKO (« the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia »)
11. Relations between the CEPEJ and the other bodies of the Council of Europe
i. Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE)
ii. Consultative Council of European Prosecutors (CCPE)
iii. European Committee on Legal Cooperation (CDCJ)
iv. European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC)
v. Steering Committee on Human Rights (CDDH)
vi. Lisbon Network
12. Co-operation with the European Union
i. Last developments within the European Union in the judicial field
Rapporteurs: Jean-Paul SUDRE (France) et Ivana BORZOVA (Czech Republic) on behalf of the outgoing and incoming presidencies of the European Union
ii. Involvement of the CEPEJ in the Justice Forum of the European Commission
iii. Civil and Penal Crystal Scales of Justice
13. Observers to the CEPEJ
14. Election of the Bureau
15. Any other business
Appendix II
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS / LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS
CEPEJ Members / Membres de la CEPEJ
ALBANIA/ALBANIE
Rezana BALLA, Head of Department of Judicial Organisation, Ministry of Justice, TIRANA
ANDORRA/ANDORRE
Carme OBIOLS, Secrétaire Générale, Conseil supérieur de la Justice, ANDORRE LA VIEILLE
ARMENIA/ARMENIE
Armen SANOYAN, Chief Specialist, Department of international Legal Affairs, Ministry of Justice, YEREVAN
AUSTRIA/AUTRICHE
Georg STAWA, Public Prosecutor, Directorate for Central Administraiton and Coordination, Federal Ministry of Justice, VIENNA
AZERBAIJAN/AZERBAÏDJAN
Ramin GURBANOV, Senior Adviser, Department of Organisation and Analysis, Ministry of Justice, BAKU
BELGIUM/BELGIQUE
Dietger GEERAERT, Attaché Service Juridique, Direction Générale de l'Organisation Judiciaire, SPF Justice, BRUXELLES
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA/BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE
Ljiljana FILIPOVIĆ, Judge, Supreme Court, Vrhovni sud FbiH, SARAJEVO
Mersudin PRUŽAN, Deputy Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Office of the Disciplinary Prosecutor, High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council of BiH, SARAJEVO
Adis HODZIC, Head of the Budget and Statistics Department, Secretariat High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council of BiH, SARAJEVO
BULGARIA/BULGARIE
Galina TONEVA-DACHEVA, Judge, Vice-President of the Sofia Appellate Court, SOFIA, Apologised / Excusée
Ekaterina STOYANOVA, Senior Expert, International Legal Co-operation and European Affairs Directorate, Ministry of Justice, SOFIA
CROATIA/CROATIE
Ana Vlahović Stanić, Head of Department for Negotiation, Directorate for EU and human rights, Ministry of Justice, ZAGREB
Laura Crnić Klapšić, judge, Ministry of Justice, Zagreb
CYPRUS/CHYPRE
Takis ELIADES, Member of the Supreme Court, LIMASSOL, Apologised / Excusé
CZECH REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
Ivana BORZOVÁ, Head of the Department of Civil Supervision, Ministry of Justice, PRAGUE
DENMARK/DANEMARK
Klaus Rugaard, Chief Adviser, Documentation and analyses, Danish Court Administration, COPENHAGEN, Apologised / Excusé
ESTONIA/ESTONIE
Kadri ROOS, Advisor, Judicial Administration Policy Department, Ministry of Justice, TALLINN
FINLAND/FINLANDE
Kari Samuli KIESILĀINEN, Head of Department, Directorate General, Ministry of Justice, HELSINKI
FRANCE
Jean-Paul SUDRE, Avocat Général près la Cour d’Appel de Paris, Palais de Justice, PARIS
Fabienne SCHALLER, Chef du bureau du droit comparé, Service des Affaires européennes et internationales (SAEI), Ministère de la Justice, PARIS
GEORGIA/GÉORGIE
Irakli ADEISHVILI, Chair of Civil Chamber of Tbilisi District Court, TBILISI
GERMANY/ALLEMAGNE
Matthias HEGER, Chef du Service de Procédure civile internationale, Ministère fédéral de la Justice, BERLIN
GREECE/GRÈCE
Michael VRONTAKIS, Vice-Président du Conseil d’Etat, Arsakeion Megaron, ATHENES
HUNGARY/HONGRIE
Gabor SZEPLAKI-NAGY, Conseiller Référendaire à la Cour Suprême de Hongrie, Directeur de Cabinet de la Présidence, BUDAPEST
ICELAND/ISLANDE
Arnfriđur EINARSDŎTTIR, Legal Expert, Ministry of Justice and Ecclesiastical Affairs, REYKJAVIK, Apologised / Excusée
IRELAND/IRLANDE
Brian ONEILL, Courts Policy Division, Department Of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, DUBLIN,
Noel RUBOTHAM, Director of Reform and Development, Courts Service, DUBLIN
ITALY/ITALIE
Fausto DE SANTIS, Directeur Général au sein du Bureau de l’organisation judiciaire, Ministère de la Justice, ROME (Chair of the CEPEJ / Président de la CEPEJ)
LATVIA/LETTONIE
Aija BRANTA, Judge of the Constitutional Court, RIGA
Agnija KARLSONE, Director of the Department of the Strategic Planning and Development, Court Administration, RIGA
LITHUANIA/LITUANIE
Laima GARNELIENE, Head of Criminal Cases Division of the Lithuanian Court Appeal, Lietuvos Apeliacinis teismas, VILNIUS
LUXEMBOURG
Yves HUBERTY, Attaché de Gouvernement, Ministère de la justice, LUXEMBOURG-KIRCHBERG, Apologised / Excusé
Annick HARTUNG, Attachée de Gouvernement, Ministère de la Justice, LUXEMBOURG-KIRCHBERG
MALTA/MALTE
Francesco DEPASQUALE, Ministry representative, Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs, VALLETTA
MOLDOVA
Diana SCOBIOALA, Head of Directorate General International Relations and European Integration of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Moldova, CHISINAU
MONACO
Jean Antoine CURRAU, Assistant référendaire près de la Cour d’Appel, Direction des Services judiciaires, Palais de Justice, MONACO
MONTENEGRO/MONTÉNÉGRO
Lidija MASANOVIC, Councilor at the Ministry of Justice, PODGORICA
NETHERLANDS/PAYS‑BAS
Frans van der DOELEN, Programme Manager of the Department of the Justice System, Ministry of Justice, THE HAGUE
NORWAY/NORVÈGE
Audun BERG, Senior adviser, The National Courts Administration, TRONDHEIM
POLAND/POLOGNE
Tadeusz ERECINSKI, Professor of Law, President of the Supreme Court of Poland (Civil Chamber), WARSAW
PORTUGAL
João ARSENIO DE OLIVEIRA, Judicial Counselor, Directorate General for Justice Policy, Ministry of Justice, LISBON
ROMANIA/ROUMANIE
Violeta-Eugenia BELEGANTE, Conseiller juridique, Chef du service du droit privé, Direction de l’élaboration de actes normatifs, des études et de la documentation, Ministère de la Justice, BUCAREST
THE RUSSISAN FEDERATION/FÉDÉRATION DE RUSSIE
Tatiana KOBOZEVA, Deputy of Chief in Legal Dept at the Supremet Court , MOSCOW
Evgeniy POPOV, Head of the International o the Judicial Department, Supreme Court, MOSCOW
Leonid SMERTIN, Head of the Main Division of Legal Organisation Support of the Courts Functioning of the Judicial Department, Supreme Court, MOSCOW
Yana tsimbalova, Counselor at the Dept. of the apparatus at the Representation of the Russian Federation at the ECHR, Ministry of Justice, MOSCOW
SERBIA /SERBIE
Milica Vlasic Koturovic, Section for Judiciary, Division for human resources, Ministry of Justice, BELGRADE
SLOVAK REPUBLIC/RÉPUBLIQUE SLOVAQUE
Ladislav DUDITS, Judge, Kosice Regional Court, in charge as the Director General of the Civil Law Division in the Ministry of Justice, KOSICE, Apologised / Excusé
Jana VNUKOVA, Deputy Director General, Head of Foreign Relations and Human Rights, Ministry of Justice, BRATISLAVA
SLOVENIA / SLOVENIE
Marko SORLI, Vice President of the Supreme Court, LJUBLJANA
SPAIN/ESPAGNE
Elsa GARCIA-MALTRAS DE BLAS, Magistrate, Responsable du Programme d’échanges au Réseau européen de formation judiciaire (REFJ), BRUXELLES
SWEDEN/SUÈDE
Anne RAPP, Legal Adviser, Ministry of justice, STOCKHOLM
SWITZERLAND/SUISSE
Jacques BÜHLER, Secrétaire Général suppléant, Tribunal fédéral suisse, LAUSANNE (Chair of the Steering Group of the SATURN Centre/ Président du Groupe de Pilotage du Centre SATURN)
"THE FORMER YOUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA" / "L'EX-RÉPUBLIQUE YOUGOSLAVE DE MACÉDOINE"
Nikola PROKOPENKO, Head of Department of Courts, Public Prosecutors and other Judicial institutions, Ministry of Justice, SKOPJE
TURKEY/TURQUIE
Mustafa DÖNEN, Rapporteur Judge, International Law and Foreign Relations Department, Ministry of justice, ANKARA
UKRAINE
Oleksiy PEREVEZENTSEV, Chief Advisor, Secretariat of the President of Ukraine, Foreign Policy Directorate, KIEV
UNITED KINGDOM/ROYAUME‑UNI
John STACEY, Head of Civil and Family Rules and Jurisdiction Branch, Her Majesty's Court Service, LONDON (Vice-Chair of the CEPEJ / Vice-Président de la CEPEJ)
Debra ANTHONY, European and International Division, Ministry of Justice, Selborne House, LONDON
***
OBSERVER STATES / ÉTATS OBSERVATEURS
HOLY SEE/SAINT-SIÈGE : Apologised / Excusé
JAPAN/JAPON : Apoloigsed / Excusé
***
OBSERVERS / OBSERVATEURS
COUNCIL OF THE BARS AND LAW SOCIETIES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION / CONSEIL DES BARREAUX EUROPÉENS (CCBE)
Birgitt BEGER, Legal Advisor, BRUXELLES, BELGIQUE
Olivier Freymond, Maire, Freymond & Associés, Lausanne, SUISSE
Jana Wurstova, International Department, Czech Bar Association, PRAGUE, Czech Republic
EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION OF JUDGES / Association européenne des MAGISTRATS (EAJ)
Gerhard REISSNER, Vice-President of the Austrian Association of Judges, President of the District Court of Floridsdorf, VIENNA, AUSTRIA
EUROPEAN UNION OF RECHTSPFLEGER AND COURT CLERKS / UNION EUROPÉENNE DES GREFFIERS DE JUSTICE (EUR)
Adelheid HELL, Secrétaire générale de l'EUR, Diplom-Rechtspflegerin, ROSENHEIM, ALLEMAGNE
Jean-Jacques KUSTER, Représentant de l'EUR auprès du Conseil de l'Europe, Directeur de greffe, Tribunal d'Instance, STRASBOURG Cedex, FRANCE
Vivien WHYTE, Greffier, Tribunal de Grande Instance, STRASBOURG Cedex, France
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF BAILIFFS / UNION INTERNATIONALE DES HUISSIERS DE JUSTICE ET OFFICIERS JUDICIAIRES (UIHJ)
Leo NETTEN, 1er Vice Président de l’UIHJ, PARIS, FRANCE
Mathieu CHARDON, Premier secrétaire, VERSAILLES, FRANCE
EUROPEAN FEDERATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES / FÉDÉRATION EUROPÉENNE DES JUGES ADMINISTRATIFS
Pierre VINCENT, Président de la Fédération européenne des Juges administratifs, Cour admininstrative d’appel de Nancy, NANCY, FRANCE
MAGISTRATS EUROPÉENS POUR LES DÉMOCRATIES ET LES LIBERTÉS (MEDEL)
Laurence Mollaret, Substitut du Procureur de la République, Tribunal de Grande Instance de Bobigny, France
european judicial training network / RÉseau EuropÉen de Formation Judiciaire (REFJ)
Elsa GARCIA-MALTRAS DE BLAS, Magistrate, Responsable du Programme d’échanges au Réseau européen de formation judiciaire (REFJ), BRUXELLES, BELGIQUE
EUROPEAN NETWORK OF COUNCILS FOR THE JUDICIARY (ENCJ)/RESEAU EUROPEEN DES CONSEILS DE LA JUSTICE (RECJ)
Lord Justice THOMAS, Chairman of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary, Apologised / Excusé
***
EUROPEAN UNION / UNION EUROPÉENNE
European Commision / Commission européenne : Apolosiged / Excusée
***
THE HAGUE CONFERENCE OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW / CONFÉRENCE DE LA HAYE DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVÉ: Apologised / Excusée
***
COUNCIL OF EUROPE / CONSEIL DE L'EUROPE
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS / COUR EUROPENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME
Paola TONARELLI-LACORE, Registry of the European Court of Human Rights / Greffe de la Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme
CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN JUGES / CONSEIL CONSULTATIF DE JUGES EUROPÉENS (CCJE)
Gerhard REISSNER, President of the District Court of Floridsdorf, VIENNA, AUSTRIA
CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN PROSECUTORS / Conseil consultatif de procureurs européens(CCPE)
Olivier de BAYNAST, President of the CCPE / Président du CCPE, Procureur Général auprès de la Cour d’Appel d’Amiens, France
EUROPEAN COMMITTEE ON LEGAL CO-OPERATION / COMITE EUROPÉEN DE COOPÉRATION JURIDIQUE (CDCJ)
Eberhard DESCH, Head of Division of International Law, Federal Ministry of Justice, BERLIN, GERMANY, (Former Chair of the CEPEJ / Ancien Président de la CEPEJ), Apologised / Excusé
EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR CRIME PROBLEMS / COMITE EUROPEEN POUR LES PROBLÈMES CRIMINELS (CDPC)
Nikola MATOVSKI, Professeur, Faculté de droit, Université « S-ts Cyrille et Méthode », SKOPJE, "L'EX-REPUBLIQUE YOUGOSLAVE DE MACEDOINE"
***
Working GROUPs OF THE cePEJ / GROUPEs DE TRAVAIL DE LA CEPEJ
Jean-Paul JEAN, Avocat général Cour près la Cour d’Appel de Paris, Professeur associé à l’Université de Poitiers, PARIS, FRANCE (Chair of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL / Président du CEPEJ-GT-EVAL)
François PAYCHÈRE, Juge à la Cour de justice, GENEVE, SUISSE (Chair of the CEPEJ-GT-QUAL / Président du CEPEJ-GT-QUAL)
***
SECRETARIAT
Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs - Justice Division /
Direction Générale des droits de l’Homme et des affaires juridiques - Divison de la Justice
Fax: +33 3 88 41 37 43
e-mail: [email protected]
Margaret KILLERBY, Director of Legal Coopération / Directrice de la Coopération juridique
Stéphane LEYENBERGER, Secretary of the CEPEJ / Secrétaire de la CEPEJ
Muriel DECOT, Co-Secretary of the CEPEJ / Co-secrétaire de la CEPEJ
Pim ALBERS, Special Advisor to the Secretariat of the CEPEJ/ Conseiller spécial auprès du Secrétariat de la CEPEJ
Jean-Pierre GEILLER, Documentation
Sandrine MAROLLEAU, Communication
Elisabeth HEURTEBISE, Assistante
Interpreters / Interprètes
Penny MACDONELL
Nelly SIDERIS
Youri OSTROVSKI
Ludovic MARTIN
Nicolas GUITTONNEAU
Isabelle MARCHINI
Appendix III
Présentation de M. Jean-Paul SUDRE au nom de la
Présidence française de l'Union européenne
Le bilan de la présidence française de l’Union européenne comporte notamment les résultats suivants :
- En matière pénale :
- adoption de décisions relatives au renforcement d’Eurojust et du Réseau judiciaire européen consolidant leurs acquis, renforçant leur efficacité et assurant une meilleure articulation entre eux ;
- adoption d’une décision-cadre relative à la reconnaissance mutuelle des mesures de contrôle pré-sentenciel (« contrôle judiciaire européen ») ;
- accord sur un projet de décision relatif au format électronique d’échange d’informations entre les casiers judiciaires nationaux ;
- travaux relatifs aux modalités du déclenchement transfrontalier du dispositif « alerte-enlèvement ».
- En matière de formation des juges, des procureurs et des personnels de justice, projet de résolution du Conseil tendant notamment au renforcement du Réseau européen de formation judiciaire (REFJ) ;
- « E-Justice » : travaux relatifs au développement dans un cadre transfrontalier l’utilisation des nouvelles technologies de l’information et de la communication en matière de Justice ;
- En matière civile : accord sur le règlement relatif aux pensions alimentaires et travaux sur le règlement « société privée européenne » visant à créer un statut juridique unique pour les petites et moyennes entreprises au sein de l’Union européenne ;
- Création d’un réseau européen de coopération législative des Ministères de la Justice.
***
Presentation of Ms Ivana BORZOVA, on behalf of the
Czech incoming Presidency of the European Union
1. Civil law agenda
In the civil law agenda the main priority of the Czech presidency will be the initiation of work on the proposal of regulation on succession and wills and another proposal (recommendation or directive) regulating interconnection of registers of wills.
The Czech presidency will continue to negotiate the amendment to the Council decision establishing the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters with the aim of adopting this proposal. The Czech presidency would also like to initiate the discussion on the report on the application of the “Brussels I” Regulation and adopt new mechanisms for bilateral agreements of member states with third countries in the area falling under the exclusive external Community competence. Further the Czech presidency will continue discussion on the Common frame of reference for the European contract law with the aim to ensure the adoption of the high-quality tool which will respect requirements of individual member states.
The Czech Republic in collaboration with Academy of European Law (ERA) is organizing the conference on succession and wills in April 2009. Results of the conference could serve as a useful starting point for the discussion at the Council.
2. Criminal law agenda
In the criminal law agenda the Czech Republic is preparing to introduce its own initiative on topic entitled “The settlement of conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings”. The assessment of the mechanism for settlement of conflict of jurisdiction is foreseen in the Hague programme, however up to now no legislative act has been adopted in this area. The aim of the proposal will be the creation of the mechanism for preventing or settlement of conflict of jurisdiction among member states based on an exchange of information about pending criminal proceedings.
Another significant topic of the Czech presidency will be the final evaluation report on 4th round of mutual evaluation focused on practical application of the European Arrest Warrant.
3. E-justice
The third priority of the Czech presidency is the e-justice project. The Czech Republic welcomes the progress in the using of modern technologies the field of justice achieved by the previous presidencies and intends to continue.
The Czech Republic would like to work out several projects during its Presidency and consequently to help to standardise know-how in those EU countries which have not yet developed technical solutions in given areas.
The Czech Presidency will first of all focus on the creation of the European e-justice portal. The prototype of the portal has been already launched, currently containing only the integrated insolvency registers of 9 Member States. We wish to introduce to the European e-justice Portal the integrated database of translators and interpreters and pilot projects setting unified electronic forms on European Payment Order and Small Claims Procedure.
One of the highest priorities of the Czech Presidency will be videoconferencing. Since every country has a different approach towards the use of videoconference, the Czech Presidency would like to improve activities which will lead to the coordination of the use of videoconferences among all EU Member States. This is an ambitious initiative and we are aware that not every aspect can be finished before the end of our Presidency, however we have identified some areas where quicker improvement is possible, such as address list, reintroduction of the idea of implementing a booking application of times for cross-border videoconferences and implementing a pilot project of cross-border videoconferencing with selected Member States. This is currently discussed with Austria, Slovakia and Germany, but we will welcome more Member States to be involved.
Last but not least, the Czech Republic will organise an e-Justice conference in Prague on 17th and 18th February 2009.
Appendix IV
EUROPEAN UNION OF RECHTSPFLEGER (E.U.R.)
PLENARY MEETING OF THE CEPEJ – 10 / 11 DECEMBER 2008
Dear Mr President De Santis!
Ladies and Gentlemen!
As the Secretary General of the European Union of Rechtspfleger (E.U.R.), I am very pleased to be here at the plenary meeting of the CEPEJ. At the same time, I am very pleased to bring you lots of greetings from the President of the E.U.R., namely Mr. Thomas Kappl, and the Treasurer, namely Harald Wilsch.
Some years ago, in the year 2003, the European Union of Rechtspfleger received the observer status with regards to the CEPEJ.
We appreciate this very much. Please be assured, that the European Union of Rechtspfleger is aware of the honour having this observer status, and that the European Union of Rechtspfleger is also full of sense of responsibility regarding this status.
Therefore, this is the reason for supporting the work of the European Commission for the efficiency of Justice, for supporting the work of the CEPEJ. We feel like just being in line with the work of the CEPEJ, because one of our aims is also to reach a higher level of efficiency in our legal systems.
For promoting the judicial cooperation within Europe and for improving the efficiency of Justice, the European Union of Rechtspfleger just finished the work about a Green Paper. It is a Green Paper for a European Rechtspfleger, and it was written by a special Green Paper Commission, which was installed in March 2008. Therefore, we created a Questionnaire, which was submitted to our member associations. Our member associations in 13 countries answered, and the answers were the basis for our comparative studies. In this Green Paper, an analysis and evaluation of all collected data took place. You find the results in the Green Paper for an European Rechtspfleger.
The Green Paper falls into different sections and chapters:
- an inventory concerning the tasks and training of the Rechtspfleger / Greffier in Europe
- an overview about the effects of the Model Statute of an European Rechtspfleger, which was adopted 1995 by the E.U.R. in Alicante,
- a range of competences of the Rechtspfleger / Greffier in Europe (European Rechtspfleger)
- an overview about the current training situation of the Rechtspfleger in Europe, and in addition to that, some suggestions of the E.U.R. concerning a standardized training situation in Europe,
- a chapter about the positive effects of assigning tasks to the European Rechtspfleger.
This Green Paper for an European Rechtspfleger should act as a discussion paper and as a basis for further discussions and studies. Our intention is to make some more suggestions regarding the efficiency of Justice. Europe must have people´s skills, and Justice and legal systems, too. The aim is to relieve the judges and to avoid excessive backlog and workload. Therefore, some tasks could be assigned to the European Rechtspfleger, an independent organ of justice.
However, the European Union of Rechtspfleger is not trying to intervene in the legal system of the member states of the European Union. Far away from that, we give you some legal input and some suggestions in the sense of improving the efficiency of Justice. That is what the Green Paper for a European Rechtspfleger is about.
Last week, the second of December, the members of the Green Paper commission and the Board of the European Union of the Rechtspfleger visited Brussels for handing the Green Paper over to the European Commission in Brussels, the Directorate-General Justice, Freedom and Security.
Today I am standing here to hand it over to the CEPEJ, in fact, with our good friend Mr. Jean-Jacques Kuster, who acts as our representative at the Council of Europe and at the CEPEJ since a long time. In addition to that, he was also one of the members of the Green Paper Commission.
I hope that this Green Paper about an European Rechtspfleger will be the basis for further discussions. And what is more, it may serve you as some kind of legal input, some kind of proposals with regards to the efficiency of Justice.
You can already read the Green Paper in English, French, Italian, Romanian and German language.
In fact, a real transnational, European project! Mr Kuster has prepared copies for you in French and English.
You’ll find the Green Paper on our website www.eu-rechtspfleger.eu too.
[1] www.coe.int/CEPEJ, "Country Profiles" section
[2] This presentation is available on the CEPEJ site: www.coe.int/cepej.
[3] This presentation and the report of the scientific experts are available on the CEPEJ website: www.coe.int/cepej.