Strasbourg, 10 March 2006 CEPEJ-GT-EVAL (2006) 1
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
WORKING PARTY ON THE EVALUATION OF JUDICIAL SYSTEMS
(CEPEJ-GT-EVAL)
4th meeting, 1-3 March 2006
MEETING REPORT
|
At its fourth meeting, the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL examined the national replies to the revised Scheme for the evaluation of judicial systems and discussed with the scientific expert the preparation of the draft Report for evaluating judicial systems. |
The Working Party on the Evaluation of Judicial Systems (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL) of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) held its fourth meeting at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg from 1 to 3 March 2006.
The agenda and the list of participants of the meeting appears in Appendices I and II to this Report, respectively.
o Election of the chair
Mr. Jean-Paul JEAN (France) was unanimously elected as the new Chair of the working group.
o Information by the Secretariat
The President of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL and the Secretary of the CEPEJ introduced Ms. Anna-Maria FALCONI (France), the scientific expert appointed to prepare the pre-draft Report - Edition 2006. The specific qualification of Ms FLACONI on statistics and her experience of the study of judicial structures were underlined. It was noted that Ms FALCONI was scientifically supported in this task by the Centre Maurice Halbwachs, attached to the French Centre National pour la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), the Institut des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, the Ecole Normale Supérieure and the University of Caen.
The Secretariat welcomed Mr Pim ALBERS, former Chair of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL, who had just taken his new position as Special Adviser to the CEPEJ, seconded to the Secretariat by the Netherlands Ministry of Justice. Mr ALBERS would be entrusted with the Secretariat of the Working Group and the preparation of the pre-draft report, together with the scientific expert.
The Secretariat finally introduced Mr. Julien LHUILLIER, Researcher at the Law Faculty of Nancy (France) and preparing a thesis on "the administration of criminal justice", authorized by the CEPEJ Bureau to attend the meeting as observer on an exceptional basis, as well as Mr. Jean Huber, junior judge at the French Ecole Nationale de la Magistrature, trainee at the Directorate General of Legal Affairs.
The Secretary of the CEPEJ indicated that the issue of the execution of judicial decisions would be considered in 2006 in the framework of the thematic monitoring undertaken by the Committee of Ministers. The CEPEJ would provide all the relevant documents which would be of help in this exercise, including the national data for 2004 on the execution of judicial decisions collected in the evaluation process. A specific attention should therefore be dedicated to the processing of data regarding the execution of judicial decisions.
o Preparation of the Report “edition 2006”
The Secretariat reminded that the timeframe for preparing the draft report was connected with the 7th plenary meeting of the CEPEJ to take place on 6-7 July in Rome, where the Report – Edition 2006 is due to be adopted.
It was recalled that a meeting between the national correspondents and the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL would take place in Strasbourg on 22 – 23 May 2006, followed by the 5th meeting of CEPEJ-GT-EVAL (23 - 24 May).
Working principles
The Chair of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL stressed that at this stage the preparation of the draft Report as well as the national data submitted should remain strictly confidential. He reminded the members of the Working Group that they had to respect strictly this internal ethics.
Moreover the Chair underlined that each member state was responsible for the data provided. The experts could not substitute data on their own, but should contact national correspondents to discuss specific problems where appropriate.
The Group agreed that a core of key data must be stabilised for future evaluation processes. This should be kept in mind while preparing the Edition 2006.
The Group also stressed the importance of commentaries joined to the figures presented, to explain these figures - which should represent the general situation in the countries - and highlight exceptions or specificities.
It was noted that some data could not be processed on a quantitative way but could nevertheless be usefully used under qualitative comments.
It was proposed that the Report systematically indicate whether the figures presented were real figures or estimated figures.
At this stage, the experts agreed that the member states could not be ordered on the basis of the results in the various tables but should be presented according to alphabetical order.
Topics should be addressed taking into account the priorities of the CEPEJ., in particular:
execution of court decisions,
timeframes of proceedings,
victims,
lawyers.
Specific topics could be the purpose of further analysis in a second phase to be prepared in the second part of 2006 and possibly 2007 on the basis of the Report presenting "fact and figures".
The Group designated referent expert for the scientific expert and the Secretariat as follows:
statistical issues: Beata GRUSZCZYŃSKA
judicial issues: Jean-Paul JEAN and Elsa GARCIA
human rights issues: Mikhail VINOGRADOV
Situation of the replies
Ms FALCONI indicated that 40 Member-States had sent their replies to the Secretariat. The following Member-States had not replied so far:
Germany, that had indicated that their answers would be forwarded in the near future;
the Russian Federation; M. VINOGRADOV said that the answers were about to be finalised;
Switzerland; the Secretariat indicated that the Swiss Ambassador wrote a letter to indicate that their authorities were not in a position to answer to the Scheme in due time;
San Marino, "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and Serbia (Serbia-Montenegro), from which the Secretariat had no information in spite of regular reminders;
Ukraine that had appointed recently a national correspondent but had given no information as regards the answers to the Scheme, in spite of regular reminders.
Moreover it was however noted that the answer from Greece was very limited and could not be considered as useful at the present stage. The experts asked the Secretariat to take the necessary contacts with the Greek authority to get a more complete answer.
Ms FALCONI agreed to accept late answers.
Study of the replies
General information
Ms FALCONI presented the first (raw) results of the replies, including a comparison with the 2002 data for key variables, in order to assess the quality of the answers and identify potential difficulties. This exercise was considered very useful by the experts for their internal work; however it was decided that for the Edition 2006 only data of the year 2004 would be presented, as the Report was considered as the first regular Report – the previous process being a pilot exercise. It should be clearly explained in the introduction of the 2006 Report that no comparison with the 2004 Edition could be drawn as ratios or variables used can vary.
The following general problems with the replies were noted:
member states were using different type of quotation systems (“,”, “.” and blanks),
the exchange rate could give difficulties in the comparison of countries,
the countries had not always presented the data for 2004 (certain countries were using other years as a source of reference).
Two essential variables were addressed in particular:
the number of inhabitants; it was proposed that data be checked using other sources (namely Eurostat, OECD or information of the Council of Europe); in case of doubts with respect to the figures, contacts should be made with the national correspondent concerned by the scientific expert or the Secretariat;
budgetary items:
average gross salary: Latvia, Moldova and Slovakia show large discrepancies between data 2004 and data of 2002; France presented the net-salary, instead of the gross annual salary.
total annual budget allocated to the courts: careful attention must be paid to this essential data:
some countries presented the budget including the public prosecution office, though this was explicitly rejected by the Explanatory Note;
it was difficult to know whether amounts which could modify subsequently were included in the given data like
investments in buildings,
capital investments (depreciation of buildings, cars, etc.),
legal aid.
Additional information must be asked for the national correspondents.
Specific issues
The Group stressed inter alia the points below.
Bodies formally responsible for the budgets allocated to the court: the Chair identified a general trend that judicial councils would play a more influential role in the preparation and the allocation of budget of the courts. Data from Denmark and Norway – and possibly other countries- should be checked to see if the organisations mentioned in their reply must be read as judicial councils. Finland replied "yes" to all entries, which requires more information.
Users of the courts and victims: The results under question 23 (special arrangements for vulnerable persons) are easy to categorize: victims of domestic violence, terrorism, ethnic minorities. The availability of victim compensation scheme should also be a topic to be addressed in the Report.
Organisation of the court system:
Number of courts:Ms FALCONI stated that there is good data available for this question and that the territorial jurisdiction of courts could be identified, by using the number of geographic locations of courts.
Number of non-professional judges: there must be a clear distinction between the category of non-professional judges who are paid on an occasional basis (like deputy judges, such as retired judges or lawyers) and non-professional judges (including lay judges) as a means for citizen participation. The replies show that difficulties remain for this category. The same can be said regarding the non-judge staff working in the courts - some member states exclude ‘court clerks’ from the list of non-judge staff, whilst other correctly include them into this category. For the analysis of the data it is interesting to present the ratio of the number of non-judge court staff per judge. It might be interesting to study possible trends towards a growing level of specialisation in the courts.
Use of computer facilities: Question 49 has been clearly formulated. The results can be used to describe trends in Europe with respect to the use of information technology in courts.
Monitoring and evaluation: the replies could be used for identifying the member states that were using an evaluation system. In addition, a general list of performance indicators could be drawn.
Fair trial: the Report should notice the small number of replies, which show that many member states do not have essential information enabling them to develop proper follow up to the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights. Member states should be recommended to develop further their statistics in this filed. The Report could commend on those countries being able to answer the question and analyse their replies. M. VINOGRADOV was requested to prepare this analysis. It was agreed that special attention should be paid to Article 6 paragraph1 (lengths of proceedings).
Civil, administrative and criminal cases: the tables under questions 69 and 73 are problematic as the majority of the member states were not able to provide a full overview of all the quantitative data concerning the cases. Especially with length of proceedings, most of the member states could not present (reliable) data. However, regarding divorce proceedings, most of the member states described in their comment detailed qualitative information with respect to the content of the proceedings.
In the sphere of the registration and counting of criminal cases it is difficult to define what a case is: some member states were providing information with respect to the number of (convicted) persons, instead of cases. A reference could be made to the European Sourcebook in criminal matters.
Career of judges and prosecutors: specific schools for the training of judges and public prosecutors exist in many member states. Specific analysis could be developed on this point. The Group entrusted Mr. HUBER to second Ms. FALCONI in this field.
Regarding the salaries of judges and public prosecutors, some member states replied with a reference to a law (on Courts) and not to the ‘real’ salary. Important issues are: the use of a bonus system as an instrument to reward high productivity and other additional benefits.
Lawyers, ADR:no specific problem was identified as regards lawyers. However the majority of the member states had still difficulties to fill in the table of question 101. Few member states were able to present information on the number of cases solved by means of mediation.
Execution of decisions in civil and criminal matters: no specific problems are expected with the results in this field. Small definition problems arose with question 105. Judges should only be counted as an enforcement officer in a situation where they are directly acting as an enforcement officer (and not in a situation where the role of the judge is restricted to the supervision of the enforcement procedure).
Follow up
The first priority for the scientific expert, together with the Secretariat, would be to request additional information from national correspondents or to clarify certain responses. A clear deadline should be given for the national correspondents to send their replies to the Secretariat.
It was decided that problematic questions and answers would be presented at the meeting of the national correspondents in May. The basis for discussion would be the tables to be provided by the scientific expert.
The Group agreed that an informal working meeting could usefully take place between some members of the Group and the scientific expert before the next meeting of the Working Group in May and the meeting of the national correspondents. Due to budgetary constraints the travel and accommodation expenses of only one expert could be financed by the Council of Europe.
Appendix 1
AGENDA / ORDRE DU JOUR
1. Adoption of the agenda / Adoption de l’ordre du jour
2. Election of the Chair / Election du Président
3. Information by the Secretariat / Information du Secrétariat
4. Preparation of the Report “Edition 2006” / Préparation du Rapport « Edition 2006 »
Situation on data collection and processing / Etat de la situation pour la collecte et le traitement des données
Discussion with the scientific expert entrusted with the preparation of the draft report, Ms Ana Maria FALCONI / Echange de vues avec l’expert scientifique chargé de la préparation du projet de Rapport, Mme Ana Maria FALCONI
Preparation of the meeting of the national correspondents (Strasbourg, 22-23 May 2006) / Préparation de la réunion des correspondants nationaux (Strasbourg, 22-23 Mai (2006)
6. Situation of the processes for evaluation European judicial systems undertaken by other bodies / Etat de la situation concernant les processus d’évaluation des systèmes judiciaires européens menés par d’autres instances
7. Other business/Questions diverses
Appendix 2
List of participants / Liste des participants
Experts
Elsa GARCIA-MALTRAS DE BLAS, Procureur, Conseillère à l’Unité d’entraide, Direction Générale des Relations avec l’Administration de la Justice, Ministère de la Justice, Madrid, ESPAGNE
Hazel GENN, Professor of Socio-Legal Studies, Faculty of Laws, University College London, UNITED KINGDOM (Apologised / Excusée)
Beata Z. GRUSZCZYŃSKA, Institute of Justice, Ministry of Justice, Warsaw, POLAND
Jean-Paul JEAN, Substitut général 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
Fausto DE SANTIS, Directeur Général au sein du Bureau de l’organisation judiciaire, Ministère de la Justice, Rome, ITALIE
Mikhail VINOGRADOV, Lawyer, State Legal Directorate of the President of the Russian Federation (GGPU), Moscow, RUSSIAN FEDERATION
***
Scientific expert / Expert scientifique
Ana Maria FALCONI, Expert scientifique, Chercheuse associée au CNRS – Laboratoire Maurice Halbwachs, Villers-adam, FRANCE
***
European Commision / Commission européenne
Katarzyna GRZYBOWSKA, JLS.C-3 Citizenship and Fundamental Rights, Directorate General Justice Freedom and Security
***
Observers / Observateurs
Klaus DECKER, World Bank, Washington DC, USA, (Apologised / Excusé)
Julien LHUILLIER, Allocataire-moniteur de la Faculté de droit de Nancy 2, France
***
Secretariat / Secétariat
Stéphane LEYENBERGER, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs, Secretary of the CEPEJ / Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques, Secrétaire de la CEPEJ, Tel : +33 3 88 41 28 41, e-mail: [email protected]
Pim ALBERS, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs, Special Adviser to the CEPEJ / Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques, Conseiller Spécial de la CEPEJ, Tel : +33 3 90 47 74, e-mail : [email protected]
Jean-Pierre GEILLER, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs, Principal administrative assistant / Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques, Assistant administratif principal, Tel : +33 3 88 41 22 27, e-mail : [email protected]
Elisabeth HEURTEBISE, Directorate General I -Legal Affairs, Secretary / Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques, Secrétaire, Tel. +33 3 88 41 35 54, Fax : +33 3 88 41 37 45, e-mail: [email protected]
Jean HUBER, Auditeur de justice, France, Stagiaire auprès de la DG - I
Interpreters / Interprètes
Amanda BEDDOWS
Nicolas GUITTONNEAU