Strasbourg, 15 February 2007

CEPEJ-GT-EVAL(2007)7

EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE

(CEPEJ)

WORKING PARTY ON THE EVALUATION OF JUDICIAL SYSTEMS

(CEPEJ-GT-EVAL)

7th meeting, 29 – 31 January 2007

MEETING REPORT

5 May13 February15 March

25 4 November/novembre January /15 mars  26 January 5September/septembremaifévrierjanvier  200625 janvier20054

WORKING PARTY 2004

OF

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE

(CEPEJ-GT 2004)

GROUPE DE TRAVAIL 2004

DE

LA COMMISSION EUROPEENNE POUR L’EFFICACITE DE LA JUSTICE

(CEPEJ-GT 2004)

EUROPEAN COMMISSION ON THE EFFICIENCY OF jUSTICE (CEPEJ)

Working GROUP  COMMISSION EUROPENNE POUR L’EFFICACITE DE LA JUSTICE

(CEPEJ)

Draft meeting report

1st264thmeeting / 1èr264^èmee réunnion 

Strasbourg, 23 –25 February / février1611-13 October1-3 Marchrch/octobremars rs  20065

Room 6 a  /Salle 110 (11

 October/octobre) and /et Room /Salle 15 (12-13 October /octobre)6 176 et

1.    The Working Party on the Evaluation of Judicial Systems (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL) of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) held its 7^th meeting at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg from 29 to 31 January 2007. It re-elected Mr Jean-Paul JEAN (France) as Chair.

1.       

1.       

1.        3rd Meeting / 3ème réunion

1.        8-10 November / novembre 2004

1.        Palais de l’Europe - Room / Salle 15

1.         

1.        DRAFT AGENDA  /  PROJET D’ORDRE DU JOUR

1.       

1.1Adoption of the agenda

1.              /Adoption de l’ordre du jour

1.       

2.    The cChair opened the meeting and welcomed in particular the participants. All the new members of the the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL , Mr HODZIC (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Mr TRIPALO (Croatia) and Mr van der DOELEN (the Netherlands) and excused Ms GARICIA MALTRAS de BLAS who could not attend this meeting. were informed on the working methods of the group and previous activities/results of the working group were explained. At the start of the meeting three new members of GT-EVAL were welcomed: mr. Hodzic (Bosnia-Herzegovina), Mr. Tripalo (Croatia), Mr. van der Doelen (the Netherlands).

3.    The agenda and the list of participants of the meeting appears in Appendices I and II to this Report, respectively.

      1.   2.         Election of the Chair

      Election du Président

23Information by the Secretariat / Information du Secrétariat

4.    TThe Secretariatinformed the GT-VAL that the CEPEJ decided at its 8^th plenary meeting to start the next evaluation process in 2007 on the basis of data of 2006, while entrusting the Bureau to consider, for the future, other possible options for a two year evaluation round in order to take into account the legitimate interest of the member states, in particular the federal states.

5.    The Secretariat indicated that, in addition to the positive reception by the Committee of Ministers, there was evidence of considerable interest in the report among the relevant authorities and judicial bodies in the member states, and in the media. A number of initiatives to present and discuss the report in various countries, namely in:

§  Azerbaijan (seminar organised by the International Union of Bailiffs in Baku on 28 November - 1 December 2006),

§  France (European Days of Law organised at the Law Faculty of Nancy on 30 November 2006; specific seminar on the CEPEJ's Report organised at the Court of Cassation on 13 December 2006; seminar on "Measuring law" organised at the Conseil d'Etat in Paris on 15 – 16 December 2006; Official opening of the Legal Year at the Court of appeal of Dijon on 9 January 2007),

§  Luxembourg (seminar on "classical, administrative and judicial ways of solving consumption disputes" organised by the Ministry of Economy and Trade on 19 December 2006),

§  the Netherlands (MTEC training course organised by the Ministry of Economy and the Ministry of Justice on "the developments in the field of justice management in Europe" in The Hague on 22 - 23 November 2006),

§  Jordan(Seminar on evaluation of justice organised in Amman by American Bar Association on 12 – 15 December 2006).

6.    The Chair stressed that at the seminar on "measuring law" (Paris, December 2006), the CEPEJ's methodology was considered as the most interesting one. The Secretariat indicated that the CEPEJ's report had been considered within the framework of activities in Singapore too.

chair explained the members the themes that are listed on the protocol for in-depth studies. During the meeting it was decided that each member of GT-EVAL will adopt one or two research projects. The main aim is to assist, guide and supervise the researchers.

3.         Process evaluation of the of the preparation and drafting of the report European Judicial systems 2006 (lessons to be learned) Évaluation de processus de la préparation et de la rédaction de rapport systèmes judiciaires européens 2006 (leçons de rapport à apprendre)  2006

            Rétroaction 2006

·                        Discussion of the experiences with the process of evaluating judicial systems.Lessons to be learned and recommendations to be made to improve the method of evaluation for the future.  Discussion des expériences avec le processus d'évaluer les systèmes judiciaires. Leçons à apprendre et recommandations d'être fait pour améliorer la méthode d'évaluation à l'avenir. / E

234.           Selection of the iIn-depth studiesFinalisation of the draft report to be conducted from the Report / Esur la base du rapport et méthodologie

Hearing of the representatives of the research teams and modalities for supervising the studies / Audition des représentants des équipes de chercheurset modalités de supervision des études

7.    Representatives of each research team which had submitted a letter of intention according to the Protocol published on the CEPEJ Web site were invited to introduce their project for study based on the CEPEJ's Report ""European judicial systems - Edition 2006" and discuss it with the experts of the GT-EVAL. The researchers were welcomed by the chair of GT-EVAL.

8.    They were He explained the working method of the GT-EVAL, the general content of the CEPEJ's rReport ‘evaluation judicial systems’ edition 2006 and the expectations regarding the outcome of the in-depth studies. It was underlined that the main focus of thesein-depth studies awere a further exploitation of the CEPEJ 2006 data presented in the Report and – if possible – a combination of the data with current information collected by the researchers. The individual reports of the in-depth studies must be finalized in September 2007 (30 – 40 pages). The adopted reports (30 – 40 pages) agreed by the CEPEJ willould be published within the Series "as a CEPEJ-s Studyies" at on the website and will also be available in printed form (CEPEJ study series).

 

After the general introduction the chair invited the researchers also to pose questions or to suggest new themes. The introduction of the chair was followed by presentations of the research projects:

1    On behalf of the University of Tilburg (the Netherlands) Ms. MULDER introduced the project on : "accesAccess to Jjustice" (Ms. Mulder).  The main focus of the proposal iwass to develop a measurement tool (indicator) instrument to for measureing access to justice from a claimant perspective - and not the judicial system as a whole. The researchers willould use partly the methodology of the ‘paths to justice’ study conducted by Prof GennENN. For the development of the research project CEPEJ data may be useful for the development of the research project as regards concerning divorce and employment dismissal cases. As has been stated the focus of the study will be the claimant and not the judicial system as a whole. However, oOther data concerning the justice system as a whole canould be useful for the project as well.  (Ffor example the budget of the courts may influence the access to justice in a positive or negative manner).

9.    The main objective of the research project concerns the creation of an ‘access to justice indicator’. The countries to be researched would have to needs to be selected. For the countries which will be part of the project a A questionnaire willould be designed and sendt to these different countries. The intent of the research team is to co-operate with the CEPEJ. The CEPEJ data willould  be used to check the data that research team willwould collect. Due to the high level of complexity of the project it iwas foreseen that the research results will be available in two years.

 

While acknowledging the high value of the objectives and the research team, the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL agreed that the project did not meet the expectations of the CEPEJ (e.g. to have by September 2007 a study based on the findings of the CEPEJ's Report, targeted to the policy makers and the judicial practitioners). It decided that due to the long-term character of this project, and the fact that it generated new questionnaires, another form of cooperation should be defined with the University of Tilburg. The University of Tilburg would be allowed to use the CEPEJ raw data base used for preparing its report.

1.       

1.               

1.        On behalf of the research team of the 2.       Universitéy de of Nancy (France) and the International Institute of comparative Law of and Lausanne (Switzerland) (, Mr. LHUILLIER). Mr. LHuillier explained the members of GT-EVAL that two projects have been proposed by the universities, namely one project on posal on "aAccess to justice" and one proposal on the enforcement of judicial decisions. For both project an expert team with a high level of scientific competence has been composed. The research team(s) will for example analyze the legislation in the various countriesconcerning access to justice and enforcement. It isforeseen that the research teams will meet every two weeks to discuss the progress of the research project.

1.       

      Access to justice: the study will be conducted within the Law laboratory of the University of Nancy and the University of Lausanne. The Oobjectives: were  to measure the effective impact of the Council of Europe's instruments regarding access to justice. As a part of the project,  suggestions willould be made to modify the questions on the Scheme that are related to this issue.

10.  In the study a legal and economical perspective willould be used (micro economics for example). Another outcome of the project willould be the drafting of proposals for reform in the member States, i.e. to make judicial systems more efficient and effective .

The CEPEJ-GT-EVAL decided to support this project, being in line with the Protocol approved by the CEPEJ. It appointed Mr JEAN to supervise the study and support the research team.

1.        Mr SYMONpresented his project on "3  Access to justice (mr. Symon): in the civil and administrative law field (tort and contract law)". The main objective of his project would be the development of an access to justice index (including the level of satisfaction derived from the clients). He stressed that it was it is interesteding to investigate the increase of in the propensitiesy of citizens to going to court. The assumption iwas that a rise of income (and the economic situation in countries) canould influence the access to justice positively or negatively. The model that is setup by the University of Tilburg is a behavioral model and very convincing. In the outline that the researcher has send to the Secretariat is related to ‘quality management’ and ‘performance indicators’ (for example in the UK this has been introduced in the courts). The CEPEJ data iswas primary focusing on the economical part of the justice. Not much information canould be found in the report on the workload of courts and the outcome in terms of decisions or results. The researcher stated that for measuring the effectiveness on justice a lot of data iswas still missing in the report.  (Ffor example information on the level of "‘satisfaction’" of the clients of the courts).  

11.        Theresearcher described the methodology of his project as followed: a development of access to justice indicators (which incorporatessubjective and objective data). In addition,  to this the researcher he willould draft a proposal for questions that couldan be added to the evaluation Scheme.

The CEPEJ-GT-EVAL decided that it could not support the study which did not meet with the expectations of the CEPEJ as defined in the Protocol, in particular as regards the necessity to reach concrete results that could be directly used by policy makers and judicial practitioners in the Council of Europe member states and the multinational dimension of the work.  

12.  On behalf of the research team of the University of Nancy(France) and the International Institute of comparative Law of Lausanne (Switzerland), Mr LHUILLIER explained the project on "Execution of court decisions". The objectives were toidentify the factors of access to and efficiency of the execution from the 2006 data and from the European legislations (and their reforms) and their conformity with Recommendation Rec (2003) 17 on execution of court decisions.

The Secretariatreminded that the Committee of Ministers was expecting concrete and detailed conclusions from the CEPEJ's Report as regards execution of court decisions within the framework of its monitoring process, before the end of the year.

The CEPEJ-GT-EVAL decided to support this project, being in line with the Protocol approved by the CEPEJ. It appointed Mr VINOGRADOV to supervise the study and support the research team.

The main objective of his project is the development of an access to justice index (including the level of satisfaction derived from the clients).

On behalf of the research team of the universities of Maastricht, Utrecht (the Netherlands) and Bologna (Italy), Ms YEIN NG introduced the project on "

13.  4    Evaluation and monitoring of judicial systems (ms. Yein NG)". The objective of the project was to improve the knowledge in the field of evaluation and monitoring of courts (i.e. case management systems). The research project will be carried out by a team of four researchers will be involved (three universities will be involved: the university of Maastricht, the university of Utrecht and Bologna). With respect to the countries which will be The studiedy would be focused on  in the project the researcher mentioned the following countries: the Netherlands, France, Italy, Hungary, Romania and Serbia.

14.  The CEPEJ-GT-EVAL decided to support this project, being in line with the Protocol approved by the CEPEJ. However it draw the attention of the researchers on the fact that the study wasconceived as a way of analysing the results of the CEPEJ's Report, but not of establishing whether or not a comparison based on CEPEJ data and between countries with such difference experiences was possible. It appointed Mr HODZIC and Ms GRUSZCZYNSKA to supervise the study and support the research team.

The main focus of the project will be theevaluation and monitoring in the courts (i.e. case management systems; how the courts are dealing with case management). The objective of the project is to improve the knowledge in the field of evaluation and monitoring of courts.

b.         Methodology for implementing the other studies proposed / Méthodologie pour réaliser les autres études proposées

15.  On behalf of the University of Limoges (France),  Ms PAULIAT introduced the project on "5           The model for the aAdministration and management of justice (Madame Pauliat)". The aim of the project was to identify how the judicial systems are organised in the Ms. Pauliat is the director of the research lab of the University of Limoges. The project proposed is a Pan-European project (and not specifically focusing on France). The researcher’s intent is to work on all the 46 member states of the Council of Europe - . The deadline is very tight. In the lab the researchers haved already worked on 15 judicial systems derived from 15 countries.;  Tthe data of the CEPEJ willould  be used to double ccheck the information that the researchers have already collected. The organisation and management of courts was directly linked to the evaluation of judicial systems and the improvement of the efficiency of the systems. The researchers wanted to develop models which were suitable in terms of efficiency and effectiveness of justice. Both qualitative and quantitative data willould be used (as well as the data derived from the evaluation scheme). The main aim of the project is to identify how the judicial systems are organized in the various countries. The organization and management of courts isdirectly linked with the evaluation of judicial systems and the improvement of the efficiency of the systems. Questions that the researchers want to raise for example are: what is the involvement of lawyers in the administration of justice and the efficiency of justice? The researchers want to develop models which are suitable in terms of efficiency and effectiveness of justice.

The CEPEJ-GT-EVAL decided to support this project, being in line with the Protocol approved by the CEPEJ. It appointed Mr JEAN to supervise the study and support the research team.

On behalf of the research team of the Research Institute on Judicial Systems of Bologna (Italy), the University of Utrecht (the Netherlands), the London School of Economics (United Kingdom) and the Finnish Ministry of Justice, Mr VELICOGNAintroduced the project on "

16.  6.   Use of information technology in the courts" (Mr. Velognia). The main objective was to analyze cases of success and failure in the area of ICT in courts and to give a description of the current trends in this field. CEPEJ data would be integrated with other data already collected by the research team.

The CEPEJ-GT-EVAL decided to support this project, being in line with the Protocol approved by the CEPEJ. It appointed Mr STAWA and van der DOELEN to supervise the study and support the research team.

17.  The CEPEJ-GT-EVAL further examined the written contribution on the same issue presented by Mr OGURLU, from the University of Istanbul (Turkey) focused on the situation in Turkey. It agreed to support this project, provided that it was integrated into the main projectaddressed under paragraph 16.

1.        On behalf of the research team of the University of Birmingham School of Law (United Kingdom), the Institute of Higher Judicial Studies (France), the universities of Bologna and Florence (Italy), Ms PIANA introduced the project on "The chair explained before the introduction of the project by Mr. Velognia another project has been received by the Secretariat on ICT (a case study of the computerization of the Turkish courts).

Mr. Velognia explained that the researchers want to analyze cases of success and failure in the area of ICT in the courts. In addition to this they want to give a description of the current trends in the area of ICT. The CEPEJ data will be integrated with other data that has already been collected by the research team.

1.        7.   Training of judges and prosecutors" (Ms. Piana). The main focus of the project would be to understand the (possible) relationship between training (as an instrument) and the improvement of the performances of the courts. The project would address various topics of the evaluation scheme, namely: the recruitment of judges and prosecutors, the training of judges and prosecutors and the performances of the courts. The researcher explained that the proposal has been drafted by a research team composed of researchers from: the University of Bologna, Florence, école des Hautes Etudes France and the London School of Economics. The team iscapable of producing 30 pages of documents before September. But, tThe report that willould be prepared  be drafted by September 2007 would present concerns only preliminary results. The project will focus on the various topics that have been included in the evaluation scheme, namely: the recruitment of judges and prosecutors, the training of judges and prosecutors and the performances of the courts. The main focus of the project will be to understand the (possible) relationship between training (as an instrument) and the improvement of the performances of the courts.

18.   

The CEPEJ-GT-EVAL decided to support this project, being in line with the Protocol approved by the CEPEJ. It appointed Mr TRIPALO and VINOGRADOV to supervise the study and support the research team. It entrusted the Secretariat to organise a proper participation of the CCJE and the Lisbon Network in the supervision of this study.

19.  Mr JEAN reported on his meeting in Paris with Ms VIENNOT, who presented a project on "8.            The delaysCelerity in  on criminal proceedings" (Ms. Viennot). The researcher is a Ph was a PhD student writing a thesis on this subject, . She wants who wanted to use the data of the CEPEJ regarding especially on the topic of criminal proceedings (and  the use of alternative dispute resolution). The chair Mr JEAN stressed that it iwas interesting to draw conclusions in particular collect information in depth on the countries that weare using short proceedings for the treatment of criminal cases (and to see whether if this iwas a trend in Europe to introduce urgent proceedings).

 

The CEPEJ-GT-EVAL agreed to support this project, provided that it was integrated into the main project on "access to justice" addressed under paragraph 10 above.

20.  Ms WYVEKENS introduced her project on "9.   Cultural diversity in the justice system" (Ms. Wyvekens). The researcher has presented the project on the capacity of an individual researcher(similar with Mr. Symon). With respect to the exploitation of the data of the CEPEJ the researcher informs the experts of GT-EVAL that she is involved in many studies in the field of cultural diversity in the justice sector. The aim of the project was to In the project proposed the researcher wants to investigate the cultural diversity in the courts, which . Cultural diversity in judicial decision is a topic that iwass of of a growing importance in the various stateswithout being often . However the topic is not explained and often debated in the society. She would use in particular data regarding the In the evaluation Scheme of the CEPEJ countries are asked if they apply specific proceedings for vulnerable persons. The expectation of the researcher iwas that the number of victims, criminal offenders, etc, willould increase in the justice sector as a result of growing process of immigration. The intention of the researcher was  is to exploit information of 21 countries who havereplied in the CEPEJ Scheme positively answered on this topic. The University International Institute of comparative law of Lausanne hasd informed the researcher that they haved additional information that maybe useful for the research. This research might also have a specific interest for the work of the Council of Europe in the protection of minorities.

The CEPEJ-GT-EVAL agreed to support this project, provided that it was properly articulated with the project on "access to justice" addressed under paragraph 10 above. Mr JEAN was appointed to supervise the study and support the researcher.

21.  The CEPEJ-GT-EVAL reminded the researchers that the CEPEJ label granted to the studies enabled them to have a privileged access to the relevant information included in the raw CEPEJ database. They would also have the opportunity to work with the active support of the Secretariat and experts of the CEPEJ. The study must aim to analyse in depth, and with concrete perspectives, specific elements from the data and information of the CEPEJ report, having full understanding for the methodology adopted and used by the CEPEJ. It should in particular identify main trends, highlight categories or models and possibly include general conclusions as regards the functioning of judicial systems. It should analyse all the data available that are relevant to issue studied, and be of use for policy makers and judicial practitioners of the 46 member states of the Council of Europe. Should the researchers wish to focus more in depth on a sample of specific countries, they would make it sure that this sample includes at least one country which does not belong to the European Union.

22.  It was agreed that relevant information on the state of affairs should be forwarded to the Secretariat no later than 1 June 2007. The final version should be delivered to the Secretariat in English or in French no later than 15 September 2007.

The CEPEJ-GT-EVAL gave to the researchers the possibility to comment on the evaluation process. The chair underlined that cooperation with this university should be supported.

23.  With respect to possible suggestions to changes e or to modify questions of in the evaluation Scheme, the researchers madesuggestions, suggestions especially as regards for the questions concerning: the budget of the courts, ICT and the training of judges and prosecutors.

Methodology for implementing the other studies proposed

1.        The members of CEPEJ-GT-EVAL decided that the research proposals discussed under the points 2 to 9, with the exception of project no. 3 will be supported by the CEPEJ. Due to the long-term character of project no. 1 another form of cooperation between the CEPEJ and the University of Tilburg will be created. The University of Tilburg will be allowed to use the CEPEJ data that has been collected in the last evaluation exercise. Project 3 will not by granted with the support of the CEPEJ.

1.        The Members of GT-EVAL decided that the researchers may use the data of the CEPEJ and that the Secretariat will send the database to the researchers.

1.        With respect to the cooperation between the researchers, the members of GT-EVAL stimulates a cooperation between the following research teams:

4        Project 6 (ICT) and the project drafted by the University of Turkish researchers

4        Project 2 and 9 (University of Nancy and Ms. Wyvekens)

4        Project 2 and 8 (University of Nancy and Paris)

1.        Regarding the assistance and guidance of the various projects by the members of GT-EVAL the following was decided:

1.        Projects 8, 9, 2 (access to justice) and 5 will be assisted by Mr. Jean.

1.        Projects 6 and the Turkish research project (ICT) will be assisted by Mr. Stawa and Mr. Van der Doelen

1.        Project 7 will be assisted by Mr. Vinogradov and Mr. Tripalo

1.        Project 4 will be assisted by Mr. Hodzic, Tripalo and Gruszynska.

1.        Project 2 (enforcement) will be assisted by Mr. Vinogradov.

4        4          Nomination of the chair of GT-EVAL

1.        At the seventh meeting of GT-EVAL the chair Mr. Jean was re-elected as the chair of GT-EVAL.

5.            Adaptation of the Evaluation scheme / Adaptation de la Grille électronique d'évaluation  

FinalisationFinalizsation of the adapted questionnaire / Finalisation du questionnaire adapté

24.  On the basis of the previous discussions, and taking into account the comments made in particular by the scientific expert and the national correspondents, The Evaluation Scheme was discussed by making use of the proposals for modification of the Scheme made by the Secretariat. For the various questions of the Scheme the members of CEPEJ-GT EVAL agreeddecided to modify some question of the Scheme, thequestionnaire. Sometimes either by making the some questions clearer and or simpler, or sometimes by inserting new questions and deleting others questions. The main principle remained to alter the Scheme as little as possible. The members of GT-EVAL entrusted the decided on the basis of the discussion that the Secretariat to will draft a revised scheme by the end of the Month February (or the middle of the Month March) 20067. The experts would then members have the possibility to comment by send their remarks at the latest in the Month of April, so that the a final version of the adapted Scheme can be discussed for adoption at the 9^th plenary meeting of the CEPEJ scheduled in Julyne.

Setting up of an electronic version / Mise en place d'une version électronique

25.  The Department of Information Technology (DIT) of the Council of Europe A presentedation of a pilot version of an electronic questionnaire (used for (for the Aanti- doping Conventionmmission of the Council of Europe) which might be the basis for setting up a specific version for the CEPEJ.has been given by theDepartment of Information Technology (DIT) of the Council of Europe. All the features were presented which will also be available for the CEPEJ electronic Scheme.

26.  The Secretariat indicated that It is foreseen that a pilot version of this electronic Scheme is would be available by June 2007 for being tested, so that in the summer of 2007 and that the final version of the electronic Scheme will be available and could be operational operation in September 2007.

Definition of a core of key questions

27.  The CEPEJ-GT-EVAL entrusted the Secretariat with the finalisation of a short version of the evaluation Scheme to highlight a core of key questions which could be updated every year by the member states. The Secretariat recalled the proposal of the Bureau that a pilot exercise be developed in 2008 on the 2007 data, with those countries which would volunteer to participate.

1.                c.         Definition of a core of key questions / Définition d'un corps de données clé

topics that may be selected for an in-depth study, including the methods to be used for conducting these studies and relevant questions to be posed. Discussion des matières qui peuvent être choisies pour une étude approfondie, y compris les méthodes à employer pour conduire ces études et questions appropriées à poser.

6.            5.   Implementation of the Preparation of future next evaluation processactivities concerning the evaluation scheme: frequency and the use of an electronic questionnaire / Mise en oeuvre du prochain processus d'évaluation

-     Discussion of the frequency of conduction a large evaluation exercise (the Scheme), the pCalendar

28.  The Secretariat explained that the calendar of the next evaluation round. It is foreseen that the member States will  states would be invited to fill in the Scheme in September 2007. The CEPEJ-GT-EVAL recommended that the deadline for sending the replies to the Secretariat will be fixed at 31 December 2007. The next report on evaluation of judicial systems will should be ready for adoption at by the plenary meeting of the CEPEJ in Julyne 2008 and will be published in October 2008.

/ Calendrier

b.   Modalities for collecting and processing the data (who does what?) / Modalités pour collecter et traiter les données (qui fait quoi?)          bInformation and training of the national correspondantscorrespondents.

29.  It was proposed is decided that the meeting of national correspondents for the next evaluation round will be scheduled for the month May 2008./ Information et formation des correspondants nationaux

 possibilities of introducing an electronic form/questionnaire or a web-based questionnaire. Discussion de la fréquence de la conduction un grand exercice d'évaluation (l'arrangement), la possibilité de présenter un plus petit questionnaire (annuel) avec principalement des questions orientées quantitatives et les possibilités de présenter une forme électronique/questionnaire ou un questionnaire We7.         bCooperation with the European Union / Coopération avec l'Union européenne

30.  The Secretariat had no new information as regards the reflection on evaluation of judicial systems within the European Union since the working meeting in Brussels on 18 September 2007. It would follow the development with the European Commission.

1.        .

6.   fromdescription of judicialsystems to a ‘real’ evaluation. De la description des systèmes juridiques à une ‘vraie’ évaluation.

     

-     Brainstorm about the options/possibilities to realize a ‘real’ evaluation as a next step in the work to be done by CEPEJ-GT-EVAL. Idée de génie au sujet des options/des possibilités pour réaliser une ‘vraie' évaluation de comme prochaine étape dans le travail à faire par CEPEJ-GT-EVAL.

4.   Finalisation of the draft report and planning

      Achèvement du projet et de la planification de rapport

Content of the draft report, necessary modifications and planning for drafting the final version of the report to be adopted at the plenary meeting of the CEPEJ (6-7 July Rome)

      Contenu du projet de rapport, des modifications nécessaires et de la planification pour rédiger la version finale du rapport à adopter lors de la réunion plénière du CEPEJ (6-7 juillet Rome)

34Report “Edition 2006”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

Working document/Document de travail

Outline of the draft report (Structure and timetable)/

Lignes générales du projet de rapport (plan et calendrier des travaux)

CEPEJ-GT-EVAL (2006) …

Preparation of the meeting of the national correspondents (Strasbourg, 22-23 May 2006)

      Préparation de la réunion des correspondants nationaux (Strasbourg, 22-23            Mai y( 2006)

t

Specific analysis of the data of the “Report on European judicial systems 2002” regarding judicial timeframes, to orient 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

Report « Evaluatingjudicial systems »

Implementation of a communication strategy to ensure the appropriate advertisement of the report / mise en place d’une stratégie de communication assurant la publicité appropriée du rapport

Organisation of the Conference aiming at presenting the report / Organisation de la Conférence de présentation du rapport

Working document/Document 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

6.   Programme of activities for 2005 adopted by the CEPEJ

Programme d’activités 2005 adopté par la CEPEJ

CEPEJ (2004) 27 Rev 43

Draft Revised Scheme for evaluating judicial systems

Projet de Grille révisée pour l’évaluation des systèmes judiciaires

Programme of activities for 2005 adopted by the CEPEJ

Programme d’activités 2005 adopté par la CEPEJ

CEPEJ (2004) 27 Rev 3Report of the 1^st  meeting of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL/

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

CEPEJ (2005) 7 …30 Final

4Preparation of the 2004 data collection of the 2004 data (continuation of the work undertaken       during the 1^st meeting of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL)

      Préparation de la collecte des données 2004 (continuation des travaux          entrepris lors de la 1^ère réunion du CEPEJ-GT-EVAL)

3.Revision of e the Pilot-Scheme with a view toin view of collecting the  collect 2004 data

       / Révision de la Grille-Pilote en vue de la collecte des données 2004

ØSelection of the Lines of Action for 2005 / Sélection des lignes d’action pour 2005

ØPreparation of draft terms of reference for the Working Group in charge of the delays/ Préparation du projet de mandat du Groupe de travail chargé des délais

ØStrategies on the consultation and the publicity concerning the framework programme/ Stratégies sur la consultation et la publicité concernant le programme-cadre

Working documents/documents de travail

Framework-Programme / Programme-Cadre

CEPEJ (2004) 19 Rev

Draft terms of reference of the Working Group for 2005 /

Projet de mandat du Groupe de travail pour 2005

4.Tools for communication of CEPEJ:  exploring the modalities which would make it possible for the CEPEJ to play a role of clearing house for the relevant documents regarding the efficiency of justice, in particular through its internet Web site/Outils de communication de la CEPEJ: réflexion sur les modalités qui permettraient à la CEPEJ de remplir une fonction de "clearing house" des documents pertinents en matière d'efficacité de la justice en particulier grâce à l'utilisation de son Site Internet

Working documents/documents de travail

Setting up the "CEPEJ Files/Mise en place des "Dossiers de la CEPEJ

CEPEJ-BU (2004) 3

Some guiding reflections on the operation of the CEPEJ

CEPEJ (2004) 26

5.Draft Evaluation Report of Judicial Systems 2002/Projet de Rapport d'évaluation des systèmes judiciaires 2002

Working documents/documents de travail

Report on the CEPEJ evaluation scheme by Roland Eshuis (Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek en Documentatie Centrum Ministry of Justice, The Netherlands)

CEPEJ-GT (2004) 1 rev.

(English only)

Comments on survey

CEPEJ-GT (2004) 2

(English only)

Questions and answers

CEPEJ-GT (2004) 3

(English only)

Draft terms of reference of the Working Group for 2005 /

Projet de mandat du Groupe de travail pour 2005

3.Any other business/Divers

3.

3.

3.Background documents/Documents de référence

3.                  Report of the 2^nd meeting CEPEJ-GT 2004/Rapport de la 2ème réunion du CEPEJ-GT 2004

3.CEPEJ (2004) 24

3.

3.Report of the 3^rdmeeting of the CEPEJ /Rapport de la 3^ème  réunion de la CEPEJ

3.CEPEJ (2004) 20

3.

3.Report of the Meeting of the national correspondents responsible for collecting data under the Pilot Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems/ Compte-rendu de la Réunion des Correspondants nationaux chargés de la collecte des données concernant la Grille-Pilote pour l’évaluation des systèmes judiciaires

3.CEPEJ (2004) 25

3.

3.Pilot-Scheme of evaluating judicial system / Grille-pilote d’évaluation des systèmes judiciaires

3.CEPEJ (2003) 36 Addendum I

3.

3.CEPEJ- Activity Programme 2004 / Programme d’activité 2004 de la CEPEJ

3.CEPEJ (2003) 29 Rev

Working document/document de travail

Pilote Scheme for evaluating judicial systems / Grille-Pilote pour l’évaluation des systemes  judicidiares

 

2004 data collection / Collecte des données 2004

b.   Preparation of a To draw up a list of essential data for evaluation purposes and to make recommendations so tt hat       States organise their statistics collection systems

Préparation d’ / Etablir une liste des données essentielles pour l’évaluation et la formulation des  de recommandations afin de permettre aux Etats d’organiser leur systèeme de collecte statistique

Working document/Document de travail

Draft rRevised Pilote Scheme for evaluating judicial systems

Projet de Grille-Pilote révisée pour l’évaluation des systèmes  judiciaires

CEPEJ-GT-EVAL (2005)6

Comments by Pim ALBERS / Commentaires de Pim ALBERS

CEPEJ-GT-EVAL (2005)9 and /et (2005)12

Comments by Elsa GARCIA-MALTRAS / Commentaires de Elsa GARCIA-MALTRAS

CEPEJ-GT-EVAL (2005) 10

Comments by Jean-Paul JEAN / Commentaires de Jean-Paul JEAN

CEPEJ-GT-EVAL(2005)11

Comments by Jana WURSTOVA on behalf of the CCBE / Commentaires de Jana WURSTOVA pour le CCBE

CEPEJ-GT-EVAL (2005) 13

Elaboration of the working plan for the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL / Elaboration du plan de travail du CEPEJ-GT-EVAL pour 2005

Future meetings / Réunions futures : 16-18 March / mars 2005

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

57. Other business/Questions diverses

Working and iGeneralnformation  dDocuments / Documents de travail et d’information

Appendix I

généraux

Projects for studies based on the Report "European judicial systems – Edition 2006" /

Projets pour des études basées sur le Rapport "Systèmes judiciaires européens – Edition 2006

CEPEJ-GT-EVAL (2007) 1

Draft report prepared by the scientific expert and the special advisor /

Projet de Rapport préparé par l'expert-scientifique et le Conseiller spécial

Draft rRevised Scheme for evaluating judicial systems /

Projet de Grille révisée pour l’évaluation des systèmes  judiciaires

CEPEJ-GT-EVAL (2005)214 Rev 2

Draft rRevised explanatory memorandum to the Evaluation Scheme /

Projet de Rapport explicatif révisé à la Grille d'évaluation

CEPEJ-GT-EVAL (2005) 3 Rev 215

Report of the 8th plenary meeting of the CEPEJ/

Rapport de la 8ème reunion plénière de la CEPEJ

CEPEJ (2006) 21

Report of the 64th meeting of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL /

Rapport de la 64ème réunion du CEPEJ-GT-EVAL

CEPEJ-GT-EVAL (2006) 8

Report on European judicial systems 2002/

Rapport sur les systèmes judiciaires européens 2002

CEPEJ(2004) 30 Final

Report of the 6th plenary meeting of the CEPEJ /

Rapport de la 6ème réunion plénière de la CEPEJ

CEPEJ (2005) 16

Meeting report of the 7th meeting of the Bureau of the CEPEJ/

Rapport de la 7ème reunion du Bureau de la CEPEJ

CEPEJ-BU (2006) 3 ..

Report of the 1^st 4^th  plenar y meeting of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL /

 Rapport de la a 4ème1ère réunion plénière du CEPEJ-GT-EVAL

CEPEJ (2005) 7 …4) 33

Draft Activity Programme 2005 / Projet de Programme d’activités 2005

CEPEJ(2004)27 REV 3

Programme of activities of the CEPEJ for 20067 /

Programme d’activités de la CEPEJ pour  20067

CEPEJ (20056) 9Report of the 1^st and 2nd  meetings of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL/

Rapport des  1ère et 2^ème réunions du CEPEJ-GT-EVAL

CEPEJ (2005) 7

Programme of activities for 2005 adopted by the CEPEJ

Programme d’activités 2005 adopté par la CEPEJ

CEPEJ (2004) 27 Rev 4

9 January / janvier 2007

EUROPEAN COMMISSION ON THE EFFICIENCY OF jUSTICE

COMMISSION EUROPENNE POUR L’EFFICACITE DE LA JUSTICE

(CEPEJ)

7th meeting / 7^ème réunion 

Strasbourg, 29-31 January /janvier  2007

Room /Salle 8

DRAFT AGENDA / PROJET D’ORDRE DU JOUR

1.            1.   Adoption of the agenda / Adoption de l’ordre du jour

2.            2.   Information by the Secretariat / Information du Secrétariat

3.            4.   In-depth studies to be conducted from the Report / Etudes approfondies à conduire sur la base du rapport et méthodologie

a.            a.   Hearing of the representatives of the research teams and modalities for supervising the studies / Audition des représentants des équipes de chercheurs et modalités de supervision des études

b.            b.   Methodology for implementing the other studies proposed / Méthodologie pour réaliser les autres études proposées

4.            5.   Adaptation of the Evaluation scheme / Adaptation de la Grille électronique d'évaluation 

a.                  a.         Finalisation of the adapted questionnaire / Finalisation du questionnaire adapté

b.            b.   Setting up of an electronic version / Mise en place d'une version électronique

c.            c.   Definition of a core of key questions / Définition d'un corps de données clé

1.                6.   Implementation of the next evaluation process / Mise en oeuvre du prochain processus d'évaluation

5.                 

a.            a.   Calendar / Calendrier

b.            b.   Modalities for collecting and processing the data (who does what?) / Modalités pour collecter et traiter les données (qui fait quoi?)

c.            c.   Information and training of the national correspondants / Information et formation des correspondants nationaux

6.            7.   Cooperation with the European Union / Coopération avec l'Union européenne

7.            8.   Any other business / Questions diverses

Documents

Projects for studies based on the Report "European judicial systems – Edition 2006" /

Projets pour des études basées sur le Rapport "Systèmes judiciaires européens – Edition 2006

CEPEJ-GT-EVAL (2007) 1

Report European Judicial systems – edition 2006 (data 2004) CEPEJ (2006) 4

Systèmes judiciaires européens – Edition 2006 (données 2004) CEPEJ (2006)4

Revised Scheme for evaluating judicial systems /

Grille révisée pour l’évaluation des systèmes  judiciaires

CEPEJ (2005)2 Rev 2

Revised explanatory memorandum to the Evaluation Scheme /

Rapport explicatif révisé à la Grille d'évaluation

CEPEJ (2005) 3 Rev 2

Report of the 8th plenary meeting of the CEPEJ/

Rapport de la 8ème reunion plénière de la CEPEJ

CEPEJ (2006) 21

Report of the 6th meeting of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL /

Rapport de la 6ème réunion du CEPEJ-GT-EVAL

CEPEJ-GT-EVAL (2006) 8

Programme of activities of the CEPEJ for 2007 /

Programme d’activités de la CEPEJ pour  2007

CEPEJ (2006) 9

Appendix II

1.        Strasbourg, 26 January / janvier 2007

1.        7^th meeting of the cePEJ Working GROUP

1.        ON EVALUATION OF JUDICIAL SYSTEMS (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL)

1.        _____

1.        7^ème REUNION DU GROUPE DE TRAVAIL DE LA CEPEJ

1.        SUR L’EVALUATION DES SYSTEMES JUDICIAIRES

1.        (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL)

1.            Strasbourg, 29 – 31 January / janvier 2007

1.        Room 8 / Salle 8

Provisional lList of participants / Liste provisoire des participants

Fausto de SANTIS, Directeur Général au sein du Bureau de l’organisation judiciaire, Ministère de la Justice, Via Arenula 70, 00100 ROME, ITALIE,  Tel : +39 06 68 85 22 78, Fax : +39 06 68 85 28 39,  e-mail : [email protected] (President of CEPEJ / Président de la CEPEJ) – apologized / excusé

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 Justicec/San Bernardo n° 19, 28071, MADRID, ESPAGNE,  Tél : +34 91 390 21 82, Fax : +34 91 390 22 85, e-mail : [email protected], -  apologized - /  excusée

Beata Z. GRUSZCZYŃSKA, Institute of Justice, Ministry of Justice, ul. Krakowskie Przedmieście 25, 00-950 WARSAW, POLAND , Tel: +48 22 826-03-63 (secretary), Fax: +48 22 826 24 01, e-mail:  [email protected] or [email protected]

Adis HODZIC, Head of the Budget and Statistics Department, Secretariat High Judicial and Prosecutiorial Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina, SARAJEVO, BOSNIA and HERZEGOVINA

Jean-Paul JEAN, Avocat Ggénéral près la  Cour d’Appel de Paris, Professeur associé à l’Université de Poitiers, Parquet Général, Palais de Justice, 34 quai des Orfèvres, 75001 PARIS, FRANCE, Tél : 01 44 77 66 65, Fax : 01 44 77 66 70, e-mail : [email protected] (President of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL / Président du CEPEJ-GT-EVAL)

Adis HODZIC, Head of the Budget and Statistics Department, Secretariat High Judicial and Prosecutiorial council of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kraljice Jelene 88, 7100 SARAJEVO, BOSNIA and HERZEGOVINA, Tél : +387 33 707 512, Fax : +387 33 707 550, e-mail : [email protected]

Georg STAWA, Public Prosecutor, Directorate for Central Administration and Coordination (Dept. PR1), Federal Ministry of Justice, Museeumstrasse 7, VIENNA, AUSTRIA , Tel : + 43 152 152 2280, Fax : + 43 152 152 2730, e-mail : [email protected]

Dražen TRIPALO, Judge, Criminal Department, Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia, Trg Nikole Šubića Zrinskoga 3, 1000 ZAGREB, CROATIA , Tel : +385 1 4862 170, Fax : +385 1 4862 107, e-mail: [email protected]

Frans van der DOELEN, Programme Manager of the Department of the Justice System, Ministry of Justice, Postbox 20301, 2500 THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS  Tel: +31 70 370 73 35, , e-mail: [email protected]

Mikhail VINOGRADOV, Lawyer, State Legal Directorate of the President of the Russian Federation (GGPU), 8/4, oulitsa Ilyinka, entr. 20, 103132 MOSCOW,  Centre, Administration du Président, RUSSIAN FEDERATION ,Tél : +7 495 206 29 55, Fax : +7 495 206 31 74, e-mail : [email protected]

Observers / Observateurs

European Union of Rechtspfleger / Union européenne des greffiers de justice et Rechtspfleger – apologised / excusée

Representatives of the Research Team / Représentants des équipes de recherche

Joanna MULDER, Researcher, Tilburg University, Centre for Liability Law, P.O. Box 90153, 5000 LE TILBURG, THE NETHERLANDS, e-mail : [email protected]

Julien LHUILLIER, Allocataire-moniteur de la Faculté de droit de Nancy 2, 13-15 fur du Grand Rabbin Hageunauer, 54000 NANCY, FRANCE, e-mail : [email protected]

Gar Yein NG, Researcher, Lecturer at Maastricht University, Damstraat 46 bis, 3531 BW UTRECHT, THE NETHERLANDS, e-mail : [email protected]

Hélène PAULIAT, Professeur de droit public, Membre de l’Institut Universitaire de France, Faculté de Droit et des Sciences Economiques, 5 rue Félix Eboué, B.P. 3127, 87031 LIMOGES, FRANCE, e-mail : [email protected]

Daniela PIANA, Department of Political Science and Sociology, Faculty of Political Sciencens, University « Cesare Alfieri », via Pandette, 21, FLORENCE, ITALY, e-mail : [email protected]

Peter SYMON, Reasercher, Honorary Lecturer in the School of Public Policy at the University of Birmingham, 32, place des Diligences, 49730 MONTSOREAU, FRANCE, e-mail : [email protected]

Marco VELICOGNA, Researcher at the Research Institute on Judicial Systems of the Italian National Research Council (IRSIG-CNR), Via Zamboni, 26, 40126 BOLOGNA, ITALIEY, e-mail : [email protected]

Anne WYVEKENS, Chargée de Recherche au CERSA/CNRS, 10 rue Thaonard, 75005 PARIS, FFRANCE, e-mail : [email protected]

SECRETARIAT

Directorate General I - Legal Affairs /

Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques

Fax: +33 3 88 41 37 43

e-mail: [email protected]

Stéphane LEYENBERGER, Secretary of the CEPEJ / Secrétaire de la CEPEJ, Tel : +33 (0)3 88 41 28 41, e-mail: [email protected]

Pim ALBERS, Special Advisor / Conseiller spécial, Tel : +33 (0)3  90 21 74 47, e-mail : [email protected]

Jean-Pierre GEILLER, Documentation / Documentation Tel : +33 (0)3 88 41 22 27, e-mail : [email protected]

Sandrine MAROLLEAU, Communication / Communication, Tél: +33 (0)3 90 21 52 08, e-mail: [email protected]

Emily WALKER, Assistante, Tel : +33 (0)3 90 21 48 39, Fax : +33 3 88 41 37 45, e-mail: [email protected]

Interpreters / Interprètes

Mme Sally BAILEY

Mr Robert SZYMANSKI

Mr Nicolas GUITTONNEAU

6.         Other business / Questions diverses