Strasbourg, 7 April 2005

CEPEJ-TF-DEL (2005) 2

europEAn COMMISSION for the efficiency of justice

(CEPEJ)

TASK FORCE ON TIMEFRAMES OF PROCEEDINGS

 (CEPEJ-TF-DEL)

1st meeting, 14-16 March 2005

MEETING REPORT

            The Task Force on Timeframes of Proceedings (CEPEJ-TF-DEL) of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) held its first meeting in Strasbourg from 14 to 16 February 2005.

            It appointed Mr Alan Uzelac (Croatia) as Chair.

            The agenda and the list of participants appear in Appendices I and II of this report. The terms of reference of the CEPEJ-TF-DEL appear in Appendix III.

I.         Information from the Secretariat

                       The Secretariat told the Task Force that the Chair of the CEPEJ, Mr Eberhard Desch (Germany), had presented the "Report on European Judicial Systems 2002" to the Ministers' Deputies' 912th meeting (19 January 2005). The Deputies had welcomed the report and encouraged the CEPEJ to continue its assessment of judicial systems.

            The CEPEJ report would be presented to and discussed at the Conference on Evaluating European Judicial Systems, to be held in The Hague on 2 and 3 May 2005 at the invitation of the Netherlands Minister of Justice. At the end of the Conference, there would be a meeting of national correspondents responsible for the pilot scheme for evaluating judicial systems.

            The Task Force was also told that the European Commission for Democracy through Law (the Venice Commission) had launched a study on the remedies available in domestic law to deal with excessive procedural delays. The Commission had invited the Chair of the CEPEJ, Eberhard Desch, to its 62nd session (Venice, 11 – 12 March 2005) to describe the Committee's current work on timeframes of proceedings, as laid down in its Framework programme, and identify any potential for co-operation between the two bodies. He had particularly drawn attention to the complementary nature of the CEPEJ's work on improving the effectiveness of judicial systems and procedures and that of the Venice Commission on institutional machinery to rectify judicial malfunctioning. He had called for continued dialogue on this subject between the two bodies.

            Finally, the Task Force was informed of the work of the CEPEJ working group on the evaluation of judicial systems (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL) on revising the pilot scheme for evaluating judicial systems.

II.       Implementation of the Framework Programme on Timeframes of Proceedings

            The Task Force then discussed the arrangements for implementing the framework programme: “A new objective for judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe” (CEPEJ (2004)19 rev). The experts stressed the need for the findings to be of benefit to the member states, and the value of identifying good practices, particularly concerning access to the judicial system and management of the courts.

            The experts considered the comments on the framework programme submitted by certain member states[1] (CEPEJ-TF-DEL (2005)1), in response to a secretariat letter of 13 December 2004.

            Initially, the CEPEJ had to help member states to implement the framework programme, particularly by supplying them with working tools and formulating recommendations.  After a certain period, it might then go back to member states to assess the programme's application and progress achieved on reducing length of proceedings.

            The experts considered the individual areas of activity, or "lines of action", of the framework programme to identify:

 those that required member states' attention and political support to ensure their proper application by states,

 those for which the CEPEJ needed to develop working tools and recommendations aimed at member states,

 those that could be implemented directly by the CEPEJ.

            On the basis of these discussions and member states' comments, the CEPEJ-TF-DEL drew up an action plan for implementing what it deemed to be priority areas of activity. The action plan appears in Appendix III of this report.

            The CEPEJ-TF-DEL instructed the Secretariat to take the necessary measures so that can be recruited:

                        an expert to prepare a report on the relevant case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and the reasons for excessive length of proceedings,

                       an expert to prepare a report on the situation in member states and the statistical methods used to calculate length of proceedings, in order to provide more information on the European situation, offer users greater transparency and provide the basis for dialogue between citizens and the legal professions on the length of specific types of proceedings.

            In accordance with Line of Action 6, the Task Force decided to set up a Network of pilot courts in the member states, particularly ones that had taken special steps to reduce or manage the length of proceedings.

            It was agreed that the members of the CEPEJ and the Task Force would select these pilot courts. The Task Force would prepare a short document for the CEPEJ setting out the network's objectives, the tasks of the pilot courts and the criteria for selecting them. It also instructed the secretariat to prepare a note and a questionnaire for pilot courts. These documents appear in Appendix IV.

            These documents would be sent to the members of the CEPEJ and the Task Force with an accompanying letter, asking them to submit the name of a pilot court (or exceptionally more than one) by 1 May 2005.

            The pilot court network would be particularly consulted on Lines of Action 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17 and 18.

            The CEPEJ-TF-DEL instructed the Secretariat to prepare a draft document on best practices in timetabling judicial proceedings, based on information supplied by member states and pilot courts. The final version of the document could then be submitted to the Committee of Ministers with a view to circulating it to member states to help them improve the organisation of their courts and judicial procedures towards foreseeable and optimal timeframes.

III.     Joint meeting with the Working Group on Evaluating Judicial Systems (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL)

            Experts from the two groups discussed the draft revision of the scheme for evaluating judicial systems (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL (2005) 6). The members of the Working Group took note of Task Force members' general comments.

            The discussions drew on the results of the pilot evaluation exercise and focussed on the part of the scheme concerned with the length of judicial proceedings, to which the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL had not yet turned its attention.

            It was agreed to revise the scheme to offer a precise definition of length of proceedings, by identifying starting and finishing points for measurement purposes.  This would make it possible to produce detailed information on length of proceedings both at first instance and on appeal, for civil and administrative proceedings, with a particular emphasis on divorce and dismissal cases, and for criminal proceedings, in particular ones concerning robbery with violence and intentional homicide.

            The questionnaire would also look at the backlog of cases and pauses in proceedings, and would include questions on urgent procedures and special procedures for minor disputes.

            The results of these discussions appear in CEPEJ-GT-EVAL (2005) 14,  in section III.B: length of proceedings.

APPENDIX I

1^st  meeting/1^ère réunion 

Strasbourg, 14 - 16 March/mars 2005

Room/Salle 3

AGENDA / ORDRE DU JOUR

1.         Election of the Chairman

Election du/de la Président(e)

2.        Adoption of the agenda

            Adoption de l’ordre du jour

3.        Information by the Secretariat

            Information du Secrétariat

4.        Implementation of the Framework Programme on timeframes of  proceedings / Mise en œuvre du Programme-cadre sur les délais de procédure

          Examination of member States’ comments on the Framework Programme

          Designation of lines of action regarded as priorities

          Preparation of concrete measures concerning these lines of action

          Analyse des commentaires des Etats membres sur le programme-cadre

          Détermination des lignes d’action prioritaires

          Elaboration des mesures concrètes concernant ces lignes d’action

Working document / Document de travail

Comments from Member States on the Framework Programme

Commentaires des Etats Membres sur le Programme cadre

CEPEJ-TF-DEL(2005)1

5.        Setting-up of a study tool and analysis of timeframes of proceedings         (Members States and ECHR) / Mise en place d’un outil d’étude et d’analyse des délais de procédure (Etats membres et CEDH)

6.        Setting-up of a network of pilot courts / Mise en place du Réseau de tribunaux-référents

7.                    16 March: Joint meeting with the Working Group on Evaluating      Judicial Systems (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL) / 16 mars: Réunion conjointe avec le Groupe de travail sur l’évaluation des systèmes judiciaires (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL)

Specific analysis of the data of the “Report on European judicial systems 2002” regarding judicial timeframes, to guide the work of the Task Force

Revision of the Scheme for evaluating judicial system as regards judicial timeframes

Analyse spécifique des données du “Rapport sur les systèmes judiciaires européens 2002” concernant les délais de procédure, de manière à orienter les travaux de la Task Force

Révision de la Grille pour l’évaluation des systèmes judiciaires en matière de délais de procédure

Working documents/Documents de travail

Framework Programme: “A new objective for judicial systems:

the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe”

Programme cadre:  “Un nouvel objectif pour les systèmes judiciaires:

 le traitement de chaque affaire dans un délai optimum et prévisible ” 

CEPEJ (2004) 19 Rev

Report on European judicial systems 2002

Rapport sur les systèmes judiciaires européens 2002

CEPEJ(2004)30 Final

Programme of activities for 2005 adopted by the CEPEJ

Programme d’activités 2005 adopté par la CEPEJ

CEPEJ (2004) 27 Rev 3

Report of the 1^st  meeting of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL/

Rapport de la 1ère réunion du CEPEJ-GT-EVAL

CEPEJ (2005) 7

Draft Revised Scheme for evaluating judicial systems

Projet de Grille révisée pour l’évaluation des systèmes judiciaires

CEPEJ(GT-EVAL(2005) 6

           

8.                    2005 working plan of the CEPEJ-TF-DEL / Plan de travail du CEPEJ-TF-DEL pour 2005

            Possible involvement of scientific experts / observers in the work of the Task Force

            Next meetings: 14-16 September 2005 / 7-9 November 2005

            Possible implication d’experts scientifiques / observateurs dans les travaux de la Task Force

            Réunions futures : 14-16 septembre 2005 / 7-9 novembre 2005

9.        Other business/Questions diverses

Information documents/Documents d’information

Report of the 4^th  plenary meeting/Rapport de la 4ème réunion plénière

CEPEJ (2004) 33

APPENDIX II                                                                   Strasbourg, 16 March / mars 2005

List of partipants

Liste des participants

EXPERTS

Eberhard DESCH, Head of Division of International Law, Bundesministerium der Justiz, 11 015 BERLIN, GERMANY, Chair of the CEPEJ/Président de la CEPEJ

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

Ion POPA, Secrétaire Général du Conseil Supérieur de la Magistrature, BUCAREST, ROUMANIE

Mario REMUS, Magistrat de Cassation, Ministère de la Justice, ROME, Italie

John STACEY, Head of Civil Business Branch, Customer Services Directorate, The Court Service HQ, LONDON, UNITED KIGDOM: Apologised / Excusé

Alan UZELAC, Ph.D. Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb, Trg maršala Tita 14, 10 000 ZAGREB, CROATIA , Chair of the CEPEJ-TF-DEL/Président de la CEPEJ-TF-DEL

Michael VRONTAKIS, Vice-Président du Conseil d’Etat, ATHENES, GRECE

Jana WURSTOVA, Head, International Department, Czech Bar Association,Ceska Advokatni Komora, PRAHA, CZECH REPUBLIC

SECRETARIAT

Stéphane LEYENBERGER, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs, Secretary of the CEPEJ / Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques, Secrétaire de la CEPEJ

Muriel DECOT, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs, Co-Secretary of the CEPEJ/ Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques, Co-Secrétaire de la CEPEJ

José-Maria FERNANDEZ VILLALOBOS, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs / Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques

Jean-Pierre GEILLER, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs, Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques

Marie MORGAN-WELS, Directorate General I -Legal Affair, Assistant / Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques, Assistante

INTERPRETERS / INTERPRETES

Julia DELILLE

Christopher TYCZKA

Derrick WORSDALE

APPENDIX III

 

1.         Tasks

Under the authority of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice, the Task Force on timeframes of proceedings (CEPEJ-TF-DEL) is instructed to translate into practical measuresthe Lines of Action set out in the Framework Programme entitled "A new objective for judicial systems:  the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe" (CEPEJ (2004) 19 Rev).

The CEPEJ-TF-DEL shall in particular:

                                    Examine the timeframes for judicial procedures by:

           analysing the situation of existing timeframes in the member States (timeframes per types of cases, waiting times in the proceedings, etc.);

           studying the standards for reasonable time and the causes for delays, including by studying cases dealt with by the European Court of Human Rights;

           providing an analytical tool with a view to possible reforms.

                       Specify the Lines of Action regarded as priorities and then define on this basis the work plan by giving priority to practical measures with direct impact on timeframes and paying special attention to users of the justice system;

                       Elaborate, on the basis of the experiences of Member States, a Compendium of best practices in Europe for improving procedure timeframes, to be regularly updated. 

In order to fulfil its tasks, the CEPEJ-TF-DEL shall in particular:

            examine member States’ comments on the Framework Programme;

            articulate its works with the works of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL as regards timeframes of    proceedings, namely on the basis of the results of the evaluation exercises through the     Evaluation Scheme;

            rely on appropriate networks allowing the integration of the works and reflections of the           judicial community, in particular on a network of pilot courts within the member States[2],     to exploit innovative projects aimed at reducing and adjusting the timeframes         operated by courts in member States. 

2.        Composition

The CEPEJ-TF-DEL shall be composed of 6 members of the CEPEJ or other experts appointed by the Bureau of the CEPEJ who have an in-depth knowledge in the field of procedure timeframes. Their travel and subsistence expenses will be borne by the budget of the Council of Europe. Other experts appointed by the member States might participate in its work, at their own expenses.

The relevant Council of Europe and European Union bodies might be represented to the CEPEJ-TF-DEL without the right to vote or defrayal expenses.

The non governmental organisations granted with the observer status to the CEPEJ might be invited by the Bureau to participate in the work of the CEPEJ-TF-DEL, on a case-by-case basis, if the Bureau considers their attendance relevant for the quality of the work.

3.        Working structures and methods

The CEPEJ-TF-DEL will held 3 meetings in 2005, one of them being combined with one meeting of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL. 

In carrying out its terms of reference, the CEPEJ-TF-DEL may seek the advice of external experts and have recourse to studies by consultants.

4.        Duration

These terms of reference expire on 31 December 2006.

APPENDIX IV                                                                                                                                                                             15 March 2005

European Commission for the efficiency of justice

(CEPEJ)

TASK FORCE ON TIMEFRAMES OF PROCEEDINGS
 (CEPEJ-TF-DEL)

Working method for implementing the Framework-¨Programme

In view of implementing the Framework-Programme on optimal and foreseeable timeframes of judicial proceedings, the CEPEJ-TF-DEL has identified three types of Lines of action:

            those which imply to raise the awareness of member States and seek for political support to ensure their proper implementation in the member States, by the national authorities,

            those which imply the setting up by the CEPEJ of tools and recommendations for the member States (they appear in bold below),

            those which can be directly implemented by the CEPEJ (they appear in bold and italic below).

Line of Action	Priority expressed by	Measure concerned	Action to be taken by the CEPEJ	Methodology
1 -  Acting on resources.	Estonia, Greece, Lithuania	Improving the management of the available human and financial resources and the efficiency of their use.	Raising the States' awareness and possibly other relevant CoE bodies' awareness.	CEPEJ's recommendation to the Committee of Ministers and possible other political support.
2 - Acting on the quality of legislation.	Turkey	Evaluating the impact of each legislative change on the volume of cases and duration of proceedings.	Raising the States' awareness and possibly other relevant CoE bodies' awareness.	CEPEJ's recommendation to the CM and possible other political support.
3 - Improving the foreseeability of the timeframes.	Albania, Greece, Turkey, Russia, Lithuania	a) Analysing the relevant ECHR case law and the reasons for court delays. b) Ensuring the transparency on timeframes for the users.	a) Drafting a report on reasons for delays. b) Providing the States with a Best practices compendium.	a) Scientific expert to draft a report . b) - Scientific expert to draft a report  analysing the situation of timeframes (see  LoA 5 and 7), - Consultation of the pilot courts, - Drafting by the TF and the Secretariat.
4 - Defining and monitoring standards for an optimum timeframe for each type of case.	Portugal, Greece, Turkey, Russia, Lithuania	Defining methodologies to be used by States to reach optimal timeframes, in particular by reducing queuing times.	a) Providing States with methodologies to reach optimal timeframes. b)  Compiling common standards for case management and monitoring.	a) Collection of data through the revised  evaluation Scheme and analysis of the data. b) Analysis of the information available at that stage.
5 - Improving statistical tools and developing information and communication strategies.	Albania, Estonia, Luxembourg, Sweden, Russia	Improving the knowledge on timeframes in States, in general.	Providing the States with a common statistical tool to calculate timeframes.	Scientific expert to draft a report analysing the situation of timeframes and statistical methodologies to calculate them (including the analysis of already available studies in the States) (see LoA 3 and 7).
6 - Identifying pilot-courts concerning the reduction of length of proceedings.	Estonia, Portugal, Sweden	Promoting time-reduction and time-management projects (best practices) introduced by courts.	Setting up of a pilot courts network, to be consulted by the TF.	TF and CEPEJ members to identify pilot courts (explanatory note to be prepared by the Secretariat).
7 –Allowing adjustment of timeframes.	Luxembourg	Enabling a dialogue between the court and the users on the length of a specific procedure.	Providing the States with a Best practices compendium.	- Scientific expert to draft a report analysing the situation of timeframes (see  LoA 3 and 5), - Drafting by the TF and the Secretariat.
8 - Acting on the number of cases dealt with by the court by ensuring an appropriate use of appeals and other applications.	Luxembourg, Portugal, Sweden, Greece	Introducing filtering mechanisms as regards the Supreme courts.	Providing the States with a Best practices compendium.	Consultation of the pilot courts and drafting by the TF and the Secretariat.
9 - Acting on quality of proceedings.	Sweden, Turkey, Russia, Lithuania	Strengthening or creating juge de la mise en état. Forbidding sine die adjournments of proceedings. Striking out of civil cases in civil matters if unjustified absence or delay. Systematising the reasoning of court decisions. Ensuring a prompt delivering of decisions to the parties.	Providing the States with a Best practices compendium.	Consultation of the pilot courts and drafting by the TF and the Secretariat.
10 - Defining priorities in case management.	Luxembourg, Greece	Selecting cases according to their complexity.	Providing the States with a Best practices compendium.	Consultation of the pilot courts and drafting by the TF and the Secretariat.
11 - Better organising trials to reduce waiting time, while paying special attention to victims and witnesses.	Luxembourg, Sweden, Turkey	Organising trials to reduce waiting time, while paying special attention to victims and witnesses.	Providing the States with a Best practices compendium.	Consultation of the pilot courts and drafting by the TF and the Secretariat.
12 - Setting up a procedure to revive a pending case.	Albania, Turkey	Setting up a procedure to revive a pending case.	Providing the States with a Best practices compendium.	Consultation of the pilot courts and drafting by the TF and the Secretariat.
13 – Making more flexible the rules on territorial jurisdiction of first instance courts.	Estonia, Lithuania	Organising the transmission of a case from a non competnt court to the competent court.	Providing the States with a Best practices compendium.	Consultation of the pilot courts and drafting by the TF and the Secretariat.
14 - Involving the relevant categories in the administration of the courts.	Albania, Russia	Providing regular information to legal professions and the users of justice and organising surveys on user satisfaction.	Providing the States with a Best practices compendium.	Collection of data through the revised  evaluation Scheme and analysis of the data. Reflection to be carried out with observers to the CEPEJ.
15 - Developing the training of judges and prosecutors and, more generally, all the professions concerned.	Albania, Portugal, Lithuania	Improving judicial efficiency through proper training of the judicial professions concerned.	Raising the States' awareness and possibly other relevant CoE bodies' awareness (CCJE, Lisbon Network).	CEPEJ's recommendation to the CM and other relevant bodies.
16 - Organising the relationships with lawyers.	Lithuania	Setting up "contracts of objective" between courts and lawyers for submitting conclusions.	Providing the States with a Best practices compendium.	Consultation of the pilot courts, bar associations and drafting by the TF and the Secretariat.
17 - Improving the monitoring of compliance with the  time-limits by judicial experts.		Enhancing the responsibility of judicial experts as regards judicial timeframes.	Providing the States with a Best practices compendium.	Consultation of the pilot courts and drafting by the TF and the Secretariat.
18 - Defining the modalities for having bailiffs, clerks / Rechtspfleger, notaries and all other professions involved in justice.	Turkey	Involving judicial professions in the efforts towards optimum and foreseeable timeframes.	Providing the States with a Best practices compendium.	Consultation of the pilot courts  and observers to the CEPEJ, and drafting by the TF and the Secretariat.