Strasbourg, 20 June 2004 CEPEJ (2004) 20
European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice
(CEPEJ)
3rd plenary meeting
Strasbourg, 9-11 June 2004
meETING REport
Secretariat Memorandum
prepared by Directorate General I – Legal Affairs
|
DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE CEPEJ The CEPEJ: adopted the General Activity Report of the CEPEJ for 2003 (CEPEJ (2003) 38 Rev) and agreed to communicate it to the Committee of Ministers; adopted the consolidated report on “Practical ways of combating delays in the justice system, excessive workloads of judges and case backlogs” (CEPEJ (2004) 5) prepared at the request of Croatia and Slovenia, invited the States concerned to report on the follow up given to its recommendations at a forthcoming plenary meeting and supported the proposal to organise a follow up meeting in Ljubljana (Slovenia) in 2005; adopted the Report “Advancing legal and judicial approaches to mediation in civil, family and commercial matters” (CEPEJ (2004) 14) prepared at the request of Malta and invited the State concerned to report on the follow up given to its recommendations at a forthcoming plenary meeting; decided to make public the above-mentioned Reports; adopted a procedure in order to deal with the requests submitted to the CEPEJ by the NGOs with a professional interest in justice matters; invited the Secretariat to further improve its internet Web site, in particular to facilitate the access by its members both to the working documents as well as to the relevant instruments and documents of the Council of Europe; instructed its Working Party to explore the modalities which would make it possible for the CEPEJ to play a role of clearing house for the relevant documents and studies regarding the efficiency of justice, according to a structured organisation, in particular through its internet Web site; agreed to pursue an exchange with the representatives of justice professional organisations at its next meetings; invited the States that had not replied to the Pilot-Scheme for evaluating judicial systems and those that wished to make useful additions to their replies to forward the data concerned to the Secretariat as soon as possible and by 1 July 2004 at the latest; took note of the appointment by the Bureau, for one year, of Ms Beata GRUSZCZYŃSKA and Mr Jean-Paul JEAN as experts in charge of supporting the Dutch Ministry of Justice to process and analyse the data collected through the Pilot-Scheme; warmly welcomed the Italian proposal, with an appropriate financial support, to organise a meeting between the correspondents responsible for collecting national data and who would have answered the Scheme, to make sure that the data are homogeneous in the future data collecting exercises, and agreed to hold this meeting in Strasbourg on the 21 September 2004; thanked the scientific expert, Mr Philippe de KOSTER, for his Evaluation Report on the efficiency of the national judicial systems in their responses to terrorism (CEPEJ (2004) 13 Rev 1); took note of the Report, agreed to forward it to the Committee of Ministers, as a contribution to the works of the Council of Europe in the field of terrorism, in conformity with the Resolution N°1 adopted by the European Ministers of Justice at their 25th Conference (Sofia, October 2003) and the Decision taken by the Ministers’ Deputies at their 864th meeting on 4 December 2003 and underlined in particular to the Committee of Ministers the conclusions of this Report; agreed to follow carefully the developments on the implementation of the activities of the Council of Europe against terrorism, within the scope of its jurisdiction; adopted the Framework Programme: “A new objective for judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe” (CEPEJ 2004) 19 Rev 1); instructed its Bureau to present to the Plenary meeting, proposals regarding the follow up to be given for implementing of the Framework Programme as well for distributing it; instructed its Working Party to draft methodological proposals in order to implement this Framework Programme, taking into account the observations by Member States as well as the answers given to the Pilot-Scheme for the evaluation of judicial systems; agreed to communicate the present Programme to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe; invited Member States to inform the Secretariat as soon as possible of the initiatives at national level within the framework of the European Day of Civil Justice (EDCJ); appointed Mr Mario REMUS (Italy) as its representative within the framework of the activities of the Committee of experts on terrorism (CODEXTER); agreed to hold its next meeting on 1-3 December 2004 and proposed, if appropriate financial resources are available, to organise before a one day Study Session on the experiences and mechanisms in some Member States to cope with dysfunctions noted in a court; took note of the proposals for bilateral activities introduced on the one hand jointly by Austria and Italy on the use of computerisation within the judiciary system and, on the other hand, by Bulgaria on the enforcement of court decisions within the framework on the setting up of the Training Centre for the bailiffs of Varna; took note of the decision taken by the Bureau to intensify exchanges with the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE); instructed its Bureau to reflect on the working methods of the CEPEJ. *** ITEMS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS The CEPEJ: invited the Committee of Ministers : a. to approve its General Activity Report for 2003 (CEPEJ (2003) 38 Rev); b. to take note of the Report on the efficiency of the national judicial systems in their responses to terrorism (CEPEJ (2004) 13 Rev 1) and to forward it to CODEXTER, as a contribution to the works of the Council of Europe in the field of terrorism; c. to take note of the Framework Programme: “ A new objective for judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe” (CEPEJ (2004) 19 Rev 1); to encourage Member States to inform the CEPEJ on their observations and priorities in view of drafting concrete proposals for its implementation; to instruct the CEPEJ to elaborate and forward to the Committee of Ministers concrete proposals for implementing the Framework Programme. invited the Committee of Ministers to take note of its decisions mentioned above. |
The European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) held its 3rd plenary meeting at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg from 9 to 11 June 2004, with Mr Eberhard DESCH (Germany), President of the CEPEJ, in the Chair.
The agenda and list of participants appear in Appendices I and III respectively.
The agenda was adopted as proposed by the President.
1. Statement by Mr Guy DE VEL, Director General of Legal Affairs
The Director General of Legal Affairs stressed the essential role played by the CEPEJ in giving effect to the Council of Europe’s instruments in the area of efficiency of justice on behalf of member States, legal professions and the users of justice. He hoped that the CEPEJ would be able to build on the methods and tools which it had introduced in recent months and achieve results that could be thoroughly relied upon by the Committee of Ministers, national policy-makers and European and international institutions in their pursuit of efficient justice.
The Pilot-Scheme for evaluating judicial systems was a novel exercise. The collection and processing of reliable and precise data concerning judicial systems in Europe was important for the role of the CEPEJ as an instrument for the study and analysis of those systems and as an initiator of proposals designed to improve their efficiency. He therefore thanked the countries which had already responded to the Scheme and appealed to those which had not yet done so to ensure that data were collected and processed as quickly as possible. He expressed his appreciation to Italy for its proposal that a meeting be held of persons responsible for replying to the questionnaire in the member States and for the financial contribution offered.
Furthermore, he made special reference to the importance of the following ongoing activities:
the Report on optimum and foreseeable timeframes in judicial proceedings, noting that the Committee of Ministers and the European Court of Human Rights relied on the CEPEJ to propose practical measures; he invited CEPEJ members to remind national governments and the Permanent Representations in Strasbourg of the vital contribution that the CEPEJ could make to the initiatives aimed at reducing the Court’s backlog;
the Report evaluating the efficiency of national judicial systems in their responses to terrorism;
follow-up to bilateral activities carried out by the CEPEJ; he pointed out that the Commission was also an instrument that member States could use to resolve specific problems in its area of competence.
He informed the CEPEJ about recent changes in the Secretariat: Mr Gianluca ESPOSITO - whose role in setting up and developing the CEPEJ was highly appreciated - had been replaced by Mr Stéphane LEYENBERGER as Secretary to the Commission.
Finally, he thanked Mr DESCH, Bureau members and all the experts for the work they had already done in the CEPEJ.
2. Information from the Secretariat
The CEPEJ Secretary told the Commission about forthcoming changes in the Secretariat. He paid tribute to the work of Mr Philippe BIJU-DUVAL and Ms Nathalie WAWRZYNIAK, who were leaving the Secretariat at the end of June. They would be replaced respectively by Mr José-Maria FERNANDEZ-VILLALOBOS (a judge seconded by the Spanish General Council of the Judiciary) and the return of Ms Muriel DECOT.
3. General Activity Report of the CEPEJ for 2003
In the light of the draft Activity Report, the CEPEJ stressed the important work that had been done since its first year of operation and stressed that the Council of Europe’s bodies and member States had expectations as regards the results of the work. These must be obtained on the basis of clear strategies defining both objectives to be reached and appropriate tools and the means of achieving them.
The President of the CEPEJ said that he would introduce the Report to the Ministers' Deputies on 15 September 2004. Therefore he invited CEPEJ members to draw the attention of their Permanent Delegations to the work being done by the CEPEJ.
The CEPEJ adopted the General Activity Report (CEPEJ (2003) 38 Rev) and agreed to forward it to the Committee of Ministers for approval according to art 7-7 of its Statutes[1].
4. Results of and follow-up to the activities carried out by the CEPEJ in the context of bilateral activities
a. Follow-up to the report on territorial jurisdiction
The expert on behalf of the Netherlands informed the CEPEJ about the action taken by the Dutch authorities further to the report on territorial jurisdiction (CEPEJ (2003) 18 Rev (D2)), in particular the legislative reforms implemented in accordance with the report’s recommendations and aimed, inter alia, at giving courts with excessive workloads greater latitude to transfer cases to other courts.
The CEPEJ welcomed this information.
b. Examination of the consolidated report on “practical ways of combating delays in the justice system, excessive workloads of judges and case backlogs”
The expert on behalf of Croatia said that the Report had been well received by the Croatian and Slovenian authorities when it was discussed in Zagreb on 10 and 11 May 2004 at a meeting attended by the two countries' State Secretaries. He emphasised the importance of the comparative information and practical statistical data included in the Report and of its recommendations, which would be useful not just in the two member States concerned but in other countries.
The experts on behalf of Croatia and Slovenia stressed that the experts' recommendations would be taken into account in the coming reforms. The expert on behalf of Slovenia underlined that draft amendments to the law on courts were based on the Report and that the office of Rechtspfleger had been introduced into the country’s judicial system.
The CEPEJ adopted the Report (CEPEJ (2004) 5), invited the States concerned to report on the action taken on its recommendations at a forthcoming plenary meeting and supported the proposal to organise a follow-up meeting in Ljubljana (Slovenia) in 2005.
c. Examination of the report on “Advancing legal and judicial approaches to mediation in civil, family and commercial matters”
The Secretariat representative said that the Report had been submitted to the Maltese authorities in the course of a seminar held in Valetta from 26 to 28 February 2004, in the presence of the Minister of Justice. He emphasised the importance of the Council of Europe's activities and instruments in the area of mediation.
The expert on behalf of Malta noted that the Report had been well received by the Maltese authorities, particularly as regards mediation in family matters.
At the request of a delegation, the expert on behalf of the United Kingdom and the World Bank representative proposed to make available to the CEPEJ studies and evaluations of mediation regarding a number of member States.
The CEPEJ adopted the Report (CEPEJ (2004) 14) and invited the State concerned to report on the action taken on its recommendations at a forthcoming plenary meeting.
The CEPEJ decided to make the three above-mentioned Reports public.
5. Discussion on the requests (concerning one or more member states) submitted to the CEPEJ by NGOs with a professional interest in justice matters
On the basis of the Bureau's proposal[2], the CEPEJ stressed that it was a reflection forum whose function was to improve the operation of judicial systems; it was not competent to handle individual complaints. In order to deal clearly and openly with individuals and bodies submitting matters for its attention, the CEPEJ adopted the following procedure:
- the Secretariat would forward the letter to the State(s) concerned;
- the Secretariat would forward the letter to the Bureau for it to check whether it concerned a question of general interest;
- the Secretariat would reply to the letter, indicating that the CEPEJ was not a monitoring or surveillance body, nor a body that was competent to deal with individual complaints.
6. Communication tools of the CEPEJ
The Secretariat recalled that all documents relevant to the work of the CEPEJ were available on the Web site, including the restricted-access part reserved for CEPEJ members.
The CEPEJ Web site was being upgraded to make it easier for Commission members to access working documents and print them out in their entirety.
The Secretariat proposed the creation of direct links with the Council of Europe's relevant instruments relating to the efficiency of justice, which were already available on the Web site in the form of a compilation.
CEPEJ members were invited to report to the Secretariat any technical difficulties in accessing the site or its documents.
The CEPEJ invited the Secretariat to continue improving its Web site, in particular in order to facilitate access by its members both to the working documents and to relevant instruments and other documents of the Council of Europe.
Furthermore the experts put forward the idea that the CEPEJ should establish a reference data base of standards, studies and good practice relating to the operation of judicial systems in Europe or even beyond, aimed at the widest possible public. It was suggested, inter alia, that these documents should be listed in a structured fashion and displayed on the Web site of the CEPEJ.
The CEPEJ instructed its Working Party to explore ways and means of enabling the Commission to discharge this clearing-house function in matters concerning the efficiency of justice.
The Secretariat presented the CEPEJ brochure, which was aimed at the general public, and invited the experts to forward any comments to it that could be taken into account in a future edition. It was suggested that thought should be given to a type of illustration that would provide a more up-to-date symbol of justice.
7. Hearing of the Observers
The CEPEJ held an exchange of views with the Council of the Bars and Law Societies of the European Union (CCBE), the European Association of Judges, the European Union of Rechtspfleger (EUR) and the International Union of Bailiffs[3].
The members of the CEPEJ stressed that a dialogue with the representatives of professional judicial organisations was important in order that suitable account might be taken of their views in the Commission's activities.
They encouraged the Observers to make direct practical contributions to the work of the CEPEJ, without necessarily confining themselves to their own areas of competence stricto sensu. The Observers were invited in particular to send the CEPEJ Secretariat their comments on the Framework Programme concerning the timeframe for judicial proceedings (see item 10 below).
The CEPEJ agreed to continue this exchange of views with the representatives of the professional justice organisations at its forthcoming meetings.
8. State of affairs with regard to replies to the Pilot-Scheme for evaluating European judicial systems
The CEPEJ noted with satisfaction that some 30 States had replied to the Pilot-Scheme so far.
Several experts blamed political and/or administrative factors for the delay in the preparation of replies. Certain experts underlined that the 15 May 2004 deadline for replying had been over-optimistic, particularly in view of the large number of parties to be consulted, and requested an extension of the time limit.
At the Working Party's suggestion, it was agreed to extend the deadline to 1 July 2004. The CEPEJ invited the States that had not replied and those that wished to make useful additions to their replies to forward the data concerned to the Secretariat as soon as possible and by 1 July 2004 at the latest. A reminder was given that the data to be collected concerned the year 2002.
A preliminary analysis of the data was to be started during the summer so as to enable an initial report be discussed at the plenary meeting from 1 to 3 December 2004. The CEPEJ President pointed out that the Commission must be in a position to submit an initial report based on the processed data at the Conference of European Ministers of Justice to be held in Helsinki from 8 to 10 April 2005.
Moreover, it was stressed that the current exercise was experimental and that one of the purposes of the exercise was to identify the difficulties so that they could be resolved and make the evaluation exercise permanent on the basis of an operational tool. Therefore it was important for States to indicate the difficulties encountered rather than fail to reply because of them.
The CEPEJ took note of the appointment by the Bureau, for one year, of Ms Beata GRUSZCZYŃSKA and Mr Jean-Paul JEAN as experts responsible for assisting the Netherlands Ministry of Justice with the processing and analysis of the data collected through the Pilot-Scheme.
The experts were invited to ensure that only one CEPEJ correspondent responsible for data collection was appointed per country, if possible for a lengthy period, in order to make it easier to repeat the evaluation exercise in the course of time.
The CEPEJ welcomed the Italian proposal - and the accompanying offer of a financial contribution of €25,000 - that a meeting be held for the correspondents responsible for collecting national data who had responded to the Scheme, to ensure that the data in future collection exercises would be homogeneous. The meeting would take place in Strasbourg on 21 September 2004, the day before the Working Party’s meeting.
For future evaluation exercises, it was proposed that the data-collection timetable be chosen so as to ensure that statistical data for the year preceding the evaluation were available.
9. Examination of the Report on the responses of the judicial systems to terrorism
In order to indicate the background to the Report requested of the CEPEJ in accordance with Resolution No 1 adopted by the European Ministers of Justice at their 25th conference (Sofia, October 2003) and with the decision taken by the Ministers' Deputies at their 864th meeting on 4 December 2003, the Secretary to the Committee of Experts on Terrorism (CODEXTER) gave a presentation concerning the Council of Europe's current anti-terrorism activities[4].
The scientific expert, Mr Philippe de KOSTER, presented his evaluation Report on the efficiency of national judicial systems in their responses to terrorism, which had been prepared under his remit from the CEPEJ Bureau.
The Report’s guiding theme was easy, equitable and effective access to justice in efforts to combat terrorism. This means that:
- special attention must be devoted to the victims of terrorism in judicial procedures,
- the principle of equity of justice must be fully applied to persons accused of terrorism,
- special investigations must take place within the framework laid down by the European Convention on Human Rights and its case law.
At the heart of the debate was the need to criminalise terrorist acts and hence to define a common offence.
Referring to the choices to be made by States in order to make their judicial systems efficient, the scientific expert stressed that it was for each State to organise its own system in compliance with the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights. It was not for him to take a stand for or against the investigative-judge system used in certain member States or to advocate specific methods of concentrating the judicial bodies that dealt with terrorism, which differed from country to country.
He noted that it would be useful to continue examining relations between the judicial system and the intelligence services.
Finally, he pointed to the need to extend the training of judges in connection with efforts to combat terrorism.
The CEPEJ thanked Mr Philippe de KOSTER for his extremely comprehensive Report.
During the discussion, the CEPEJ requested the scientific expert to make certain amendments. These appear in the final version in document CEPEJ (2004) 13 Rev 1.
The CEPEJ took note of the final Report and agreed to forward it to the Committee of Ministers as a contribution to the Council of Europe’s work on terrorism. It drew the Committee of Ministers' particular attention to the conclusions of the Report.
The CEPEJ agreed to follow closely developments in the implementation of Council of Europe's activities against terrorism, within the limits of its powers.
10.Framework Programme: "A new objective for judicial
systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe"
The CEPEJ President referred to the goal of the draft Framework Programme prepared by the Working Party, namely to propose to member States a series of measures relating to judicial timeframes as a basis for specific subsequent action by the CEPEJ.
The Chair of the Working Party, Mr Jean-Paul JEAN, outlined the Report and particularly stressed its bias to favour not only the question of the slowness of justice but also the issue of optimum timeframes, as well as the need to accord a special place to users of the justice system.
The CEPEJ thanked its Working Party and the Secretariat for the draft Programme.
Following a point-by-point discussion of the draft and the amendments to it, the CEPEJ adopted the Framework Programme "A new objective for judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable time frame" (CEPEJ (2004) 19 Rev 1).
The representative of the European Commission indicated that the research programmes supported by the European Commission could be used, if appropriate, concerning the matters addressed by the Framework Programme.
The CEPEJ instructed its Bureau to present follow-up proposals at the plenary meeting for the implementation and distribution of the Framework Programme.
The CEPEJ instructed its Working Party to draft methodological proposals for implementation of the Framework Programme, taking into account the observations by member States as well as the answers given in connection with the Pilot-Scheme for the evaluation of judicial systems.
It agreed to communicate the Framework Programme to the Committee of Ministers.
11. Information concerning activities involving the CEPEJ
a. European Day of Civil Justice (EDCJ)
The Secretariat and the European Commission representative appealed jointly to member States to inform them as soon as possible (in particular via the CEPEJ Web site) about national initiatives planned in connection with the second European Day of Civil Justice to be held in the last week of October 2004.
They invited in particular a member State to volunteer to organise the Day’s leading event, along the lines of the EDCJ event organised by Hungary in 2003.
The Secretariat indicated that it was willing to support any initiatives, both as regards their design and communication tools, subject to the funds available.
The expert on behalf of the United Kingdom informed the CEPEJ that several "in court" open days would be organised, while the expert on behalf of Romania indicated that the High Council of Justice would be arranging a number of events in connection with the EDCJ.
b. "Regional conference on the efficiency of courts in countries of the South-Eastern Adriatic" organised by the Canadian section of the International Commission of Jurists (Lake Palic, Serbia-Montenegro, 17 to 20 June 2004)
The CEPEJ President informed that the Commission had been invited to attend the above Conference by the Canadian authorities. The CEPEJ would be represented by the Secretariat.
c. Conference in connection with the 10th anniversary of Romania's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights (Bucharest, 8 and 9 July 2004)
The Secretariat informed that the CEPEJ had been invited to attend the Conference organised by the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, part of which would be devoted to timeframes for judicial procedures. The Conference would be an opportunity to present the broad lines of the Framework Programme on judicial timeframes (see above).
The CEPEJ President invited interested Commission members to apply to the Secretariat. The CEPEJ would be represented by the Romanian member and the Commission Secretary.
d. Colloquy on the Civil Code and Europe: influences and modernity, organised to mark the 200th anniversary of the French Civil Code (Strasbourg, 21 and 22 October 2004)
The Secretariat referred to the background against which the Council of Europe was organising, in partnership with the French Court of Cassation and the Ministry of Justice and with the support of the French Ecole Nationale de la Magistrature, the European event celebrating the bicentenary of the French Civil Code (one event had already taken place or would take place in each continent).
The Colloquy would bring together 200 to 300 civil-law experts, codification specialists and leading European figures in law and politics. The French and German Ministers of Justice would attend the opening of the Colloquy.
All members of the CEPEJ were invited to attend (however, only one representative per member State would be paid for by the Council of Europe).
An informal meeting of the Presidents of European Supreme Courts would be held on the same occasion.
e. Conference jointly organised with the European Commission on the theme "Towards an ideal trial" (Brussels, 18 and 19 November 2004)
The Secretariat and the European Commission representative gave details of the programme for the Conference, which would be jointly organised by the Council of Europe and the European Commission (with the latter providing the funding).
The CEPEJ would be closely associated with the Conference, as several of its members would be included among the speakers.
All CEPEJ members were invited to attend (however, only one representative per member State would be paid for by the European Commission).
f. CEPEJ representation on CODEXTER
The Secretariat informed the CEPEJ of the new terms of reference of the Committee of Experts on Terrorism (CODEXTER), which had been adopted by the Ministers' Deputies on 11 June 2004 at their 887th meeting. These terms of reference provided for the participation of a CEPEJ representative.
The CEPEJ appointed Mr Mario REMUS (Italy) to represent it on CODEXTER.
g. Cooperation with the World Bank
The World Bank representative informed the CEPEJ about the video-conference held on 30 March 2004 on the subject of performance indicators for judicial systems, with the participation of the CEPEJ Secretariat, the European Commission and the Complutense University of Madrid. He thanked the CEPEJ Secretariat for its presentation of the evaluation exercise that was being carried out through the Pilot-Scheme and stressed the Bank’s willingness to repeat the experiment with other topics relating to the efficiency of justice.
The CEPEJ President mentioned the very good cooperation that had been established between the Commission and the World Bank.
9. Future work
a. Study sessions
The CEPEJ proposed that "study sessions" (similar to the Study session on "Justice: serving citizens", organised on the United Kingdom’s initiative in December 2003), should be arranged just before plenary meetings. This would enable light to be shed on a specific theme connected with the efficiency of justice and might open up, if appropriate, possibilities for future work by the Commission.
Further to a proposal from the expert on behalf of France, a Study session could take place in Strasbourg on 30 November, provided funds were available. It could cover the experiences of certain member States (France, Germany and Belgium had shown an interest) with dysfunctions that had been found to exist in a court and the means of dealing with them.
It was accordingly agreed that the expert on behalf of France would prepare an information note for the attention of CEPEJ members.
Other topics were suggested for future study sessions: court management, mediation and information technology in the service of justice.
b. Bilateral activities
The expert on behalf of Bulgaria announced a proposal by the Bulgarian Ministry of Justice for the submission to member States via the CEPEJ of a questionnaire on the enforcement of court decisions in connection with the setting up of a regional training centre for bailiffs in Varna.
The CEPEJ agreed in principle to this proposal and instructed the Secretariat to decide, in co-operation with the Bulgarian authorities, how it should be implemented.
The expert on behalf of Austria underlined that data on this subject were available for the 25 EU member States from the European Judicial Network in Civil and Commercial Matters of the European Commission.
The experts on behalf of Austria and Italy jointly proposed an activity in 2005 aimed at providing information about "good practice" in the computerisation of civil justice.
In this context, the expert on behalf of Austria also pointed out that a multilateral conference on "New IT-Solutions for Courts, Administration of justice and Legal Information System" would take place in June 2006 in the frame of the Austrian Presidency of the European Union. The member States are invited to forward their ideas on the matter, especially through the Web site: www.justiz.gv.at.
The CEPEJ agreed in principle to this proposal.
The CEPEJ President invited member States to send to the Secretariat any proposals for bilateral activities for 2005 before the 4th plenary meeting of the Commission (1 December 2004).
c. Working methods of the CEPEJ
Further to the suggestion by the representative of the European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ), the CEPEJ instructed its Bureau to examine the efficiency of the Commission's working methods in order to gain optimum profit from the expertise of the plenary session.
d. Relations with other Council of Europe bodies with competence in judicial matters
The CEPEJ President informed the Commission that the Bureau would invite the Chair of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) to attend a forthcoming meeting with the object of proposing suitable ways of stepping up exchanges between the CEPEJ and the CCJE.
Moreover, consideration would be given to the possibility of establishing cooperation between the CEPEJ and Lisbon Network in charge of judicial training.
APPENDIX I
agenda
Wednesday 9 June 2004
9h00 – 10h00 Meeting of the Bureau of the CEPEJ
10h00 Beginning of the plenary meeting
Opening of the meetingby Mr Guy DE VEL, Director General of Legal Affairs (DGI)
2. Adoption of the agenda
3. Information by the Secretariat
Adoption of General Activity Report of the CEPEJ for 2003
Hearing for the Observers (14h30 – 16h00)
a. The Council of the Bars and Law Societies of the European Communities (CCBE)
b. The European Association of Judges
c. The European Union of Rechtspfleger (EUR)
d. International Union of bailiffs
Discussion on the « State of Affairs » of the replies to the Pilot-Scheme
Examination of the Report on « For optimal and foreseeable timeframes in judicial proceedings: elements of an Action Plan», with a view to its adoption
Results and follow-up of the activities covered out by the CEPEJ in the framework of the bilateral activities
a. Follow up of the Report on territorial jurisdiction
b. Examination of the consolidated Report on : “Practical ways of combating delays in the justice system, excessive workloads of judges and case backlogs” (Croatia/Slovenia), with a view to its adoption
c. Examination of the Report “Advancing legal and judicial approaches to mediation in civil, family and commercial matters (Malta) with a view to its adoption
Examination of the Report on the responses of the judicial systems to terrorism.
Information on the state of affairs concerning activities involving the CEPEJ
a. Conference jointly organised with the European Commission on : “Towards an ideal Trial” (Brussels, 18-19 November 2004)
b. Conference on the civil code and Europe : influences and modernity, organised in the framework of the 200th anniversary of the French Civil code (Strasbourg, 21-22 October 2004)
c. The European Day of Civil Justice (EDCJ)
Discussion on the policy on requests (concerning one or more member States) submitted to the CEPEJ by NGOs with a professional interest in justice matters.
The Internet website of the CEPEJ and presentation of the brochure for the CEPEJ
Calendar of future work
Any other business
Appendix II
The fight against terrorism
Council of Europe activities
A. Background
The Council of Europe has been dedicated since 1949 to upholding human rights, the rule of law and pluralist democracy, and is determined to combat terrorism which repudiates these three fundamental values. The Council of Europe has therefore been dealing with this matter since the 70s (see relevant Council of Europe instruments and documents). The terrorist attacks in the United States in 2001 were immediately followed by firm political commitments from the Committee of Ministers, the Parliamentary Assembly and the Conference of European Ministers of Justice to launch and implement a plan of action aiming at strengthening legal action against terrorism, adopted by the Committee of Ministers in November 2001. The Council of Europe's action is based on three cornerstones:
strengthening legal action against terrorism
safeguarding fundamental values
addressing the causes of terrorism.
As a regional organisation, the Council of Europe is engaged in facilitating the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1373(2001), by providing a forum for discussing and adopting regional standards and best practice and for providing assistance to its member States in improving their counter-terrorism capacity. At the same time, it has strengthened its working relationship with other international organisations active in this field (EU, OSCE, UN).
The efforts to strengthen legal action against terrorism are based on the fundamental principle that it is possible and necessary to fight terrorism while respecting human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, in the spirit of the Parliamentary Assembly’s Recommendation REC 1550 (2002) and Resolution RES 1271 (2002) on Combating terrorism and respect for human rights, adopted on 24 January 2002, and of the Guidelines on Human Rights and the Fight Against Terrorism adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 15 July 2002. The latter is the first international legal text on this topic and includes 17 principles specifying the limitations which States shall impose on themselves in their efforts to combat terrorism and which result from international texts and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.
The most significant developments in the area of legal action against terrorism relate to the work of the Multidisciplinary Group on International Action against Terrorism (GMT), an intergovernmental committee of experts set up in November 2001 with the tasks of identifying priorities for future action by the Council of Europe and reviewing the relevant Council of Europe international instruments, in particular the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism of 1977. These tasks were completed in just one year.
B. The Revised European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism
On 15 May 2003, an Amending Protocol (ETS No. 190) to the 1977 European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism was opened for signature. Some 40 member States have already signed it and the ratification process is underway. It will enter into force when all the States Parties to the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism have ratified it.
The Protocol introduces a number of significant changes to the Convention:
a substantial extension of the list of offences which may never be regarded as political or politically motivated, which now includes all the offences covered by all the UN anti-terrorist conventions
the introduction of a simplified amendment procedure allowing new offences to be added to the list
the opening of the Convention to observer states, and subject to a Committee of Ministers’ decision, to other non-member states
the possibility of refusing to extradite offenders to countries where they risk the death penalty, torture or life imprisonment without parole
a significant reduction of the possibilities to refuse extradition on the basis of reservations to the Convention and such refusal will be subject to a specific follow-up procedure, which will also apply to the follow-up of any obligation under the Convention as amended.
C. The Counter-Terrorism priorities of the Council of Europe
The GMT also identified 6 priority areas, endorsed by the Committee of Ministers in November 2002, namely:
research on the concepts of “apologie du terrorisme” and “incitement to terrorism”
special investigation techniques
protection of witnesses and collaborators of justice
international co-operation on law enforcement
action to cut terrorists off from funding sources
questions of identity documents which arise in connection with terrorism
The six priority activities are currently being implemented with a view to the possible elaboration of instruments or to the evaluation of existing measures.
A number of specific intergovernmental committees have been set up in order to implement the priority areas. Their specific terms of reference reflect the Council of Europe’s underlying concern to strike a balance between combating terrorism and respecting human rights: reference is constantly made to respect for the Council of Europe’s standards in the fields of human rights and the rule of law.
D. The 25th Conference of European Ministers of Justice - new impetus and new tasks
In Resolution No. 1 on combating terrorism adopted at the Conference (Sofia, 9-10 October 2003), the Ministers reaffirmed their intention to pursue their efforts, in particular in the priority areas, to reinforce the fight against terrorism and increase the security of citizens, in a spirit of solidarity and on the basis of the common values to which the Council of Europe is firmly committed: the rule of law, human rights and pluralist democracy. In addition, they identified other possible areas for further action, namely:
protection, support and compensation of victims of terrorist acts
assessment of the effectiveness of national judicial systems in their response to terrorism
support for the upgrading of member States’ counter-terrorism legislative and institutional capacities
feasibility of setting up a European register of national and international standards, starting with standards in the field of the fight against terrorism
possible added value of a comprehensive European Convention against terrorism, which would contribute significantly to the UN efforts in this field.
E. The Committee of Experts on Terrorism (CODEXTER) and future prospects
The CODEXTER, a governmental committee of experts, is in charge of coordinating and supervising the Council of Europe’s contribution to the fight against terrorism in the legal field and, in particular, the implementation of the priority activities.
The CODEXTER has endorsed the preparation of international instruments on the protection of witnesses and collaborators of justice and on special investigation techniques, and has conducted a research on the concepts of “apologie du terrorisme” and “incitement to terrorism”, with a view to the preparation of an international instrument in this area. In addition, the CODEXTER proposed to the Committee of Ministers ways to better protect, support and compensate victims of terrorist acts and will conduct country surveys on counter-terrorism capacity.
The CODEXTER has also considered the added value of a possible Council of Europe comprehensive convention on terrorism and has been called upon to elaborate one or more specific scope instruments to deal with existing lacunae in international law or action on the fight against terrorism.
The rapid adoption of these new instruments and the pursuance of the priority actions mentioned above will provide the European continent with a set of effective instruments and actively contribute to the efforts of the international community, whilst respecting the human rights standards which are Europe’s common heritage.
F. The Council of Europe Co-operation programme to strengthen the rule of law:
The Council of Europe set up a number of specific legal co-operation programmes open to all member and applicant States. These programmes are designed to help beneficiary countries to proceed with their institutional, legislative and administrative reforms. They chiefly involve working with governmental authorities to prepare and introduce legal and operational frameworks adapted to a country’s specific needs and features, and consistent with fundamental European standards and principles, and to ensure that reforms are concretely implemented with respect for these principles.
The activities are defined in close co-operation with the countries concerned and with other international organisations, on the basis of the specific features of the beneficiary States. Co-operation activities are essentially based on multilateral, regional or bilateral information and training seminars, expert appraisals, needs-assessments and study visits.
APPENDIX III
List of participants
ALBANIA/ALBANIE
Ksenofon KRISAFI, Secrétaire Général du Conseil des Ministres, TIRANA
ANDORRA/ANDORRE
Carme OBIOLS, Secrétaire Générale, Conseil supérieur de la Justice, ANDORRA LA VELLA
ARMENIA/ARMENIE
Armen SANOYAN, Chief Specialist, Department of International Legal Relations, Ministry of Justice, YEREVAN
AUSTRIA/AUTRICHE
Barbara GÖTH-FLEMMICH, Deputy Head of Division, Ministry of Justice, VIENNA
Thomas GOTTWALD, Judge, Project Manager Assistant, Ministry of Justice, VIENNA
AZERBAIJAN/AZERBAIDJAN
Azar JAKAROV, Head of the Organisational-Analytical Department, Ministry of Justice, BAKU
Farhraddin ISMAYILOV, Deputy to the Permanent Representative, Permanent Representation of Azerbaijan to the Council of Europe
BELGIUM/BELGIQUE
Meryem DEMIR, Conseiller adjoint, Direction Générale Legislation, Droits fondamentaux et Libertés, Service Public Fédéral Justice, BRUXELLES
Christian PANIER, Président du Tribunal de Première Instance de Namur, Palais de Justice, NAMUR
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA/BOSNIE-HERZEGOVINE: Apologised / Excusée
BULGARIA/BULGARIE
Galina TONEVA-DACHEVA, Judge, Appeal Court of Sofia, SOFIA
CROATIA/CROATIE
Alan UZELAC, Ph.D. Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb, ZAGREB, member of the Bureau of the CEPEJ /Membre du CEPEJ-GT 2004)
CYPRUS/CHYPRE
Loukis SAVVIDES, Ex-Judge of the Supreme Court of Cyprus – Legal Consultant, LIMASSOL
CZECH REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
Ivana BORZOVÁ, Head, Department of Civil Supervision, Ministry of Justice, PRAHA
Jana WURSTOVA, Head, International Department, Czech Bar Association,PRAHA
DENMARK/DANEMARK
Klaus RUGAARD, Chief Adviser, Court Administration (Domstolsstyrelsen Økonomikontoret), KØBENHAVN K
ESTONIA/ESTONIE
Margus SARAPUU, Deputy Secretary General on Court Administration, Ministry of Justice, TALLINN
FINLAND/FINLANDE
Kari KIESILĀINEN, Director General, Ministry of Justice, HELSINKI
FRANCE
André POTOCKI, Président de Chambre à la Cour d’Appel de Paris, PARIS, Vice-Chair of the CEPEJ / Vice-Président de la CEPEJ
GEORGIA/GEORGIE
Irakli KVASHILAVA, Head of the Office of the Minister, TBILISI
GERMANY/ALLEMAGNE
Eberhard DESCH, Head of Division of International Law, Bundesministerium der Justiz, BERLIN, Chair of the CEPEJ/ Président de la CEPEJ
Anette WERMTER, Judge, Desk Officer, Division of International Civil Procedure Law; Mutual Assistance; Arbitration, Ministry of Justice, BERLIN
GREECE/GRECE : Apologised / Excusée
HUNGARY/HONGRIE
Gabor NAGY, Référendaire, Directeur du Bureau des Droits de l’Homme à la Cour Suprême de Hongrie, BudapesT
ICELAND/ISLANDE : Apologised / Excusée
IRELAND/IRLANDE
Ciaran KELLY, Principal Registrar High Court, Courts Service, Four Courts, DUBLIN
ITALY/ITALIE
Mario REMUS, Magistrat à la Cour de cassation, Ministère de la Justice, ROME
Fausto DE SANTIS , Directeur Général au sein du Bureau de l’organisation judiciaire, Ministère de la Justice, ROME
Enzo MERIGGIOLA, Membre de la direction du Centre électronique d’information, Cour de Cassation, ROME
LATVIA/LETTONIE
Aija BRANTA, Judge of the Constitutional Court, RIGA
LIECHTENSTEIN : Excusé / Apologised
LITHUANIA/LITUANIE
Egidijus BIELIŪNAS, Juge, Section des Affaires Criminelles, Cour Suprême de Lituanie, VILNIUS
LUXEMBOURG : Apologised / Excusé
MALTA/MALTE
Ray ZAMMIT, Lawyer, VALETTA
MOLDOVA
Vitalie PARLOG, Director, Governmental Agent and Foreign Relations Direction, Ministry of Justice, CHISINAU
NETHERLANDS/PAYS‑BAS
Pim ALBERS, Senior Policy Advisor, Strategy Department for the Administration of Justice, Ministry of Justice, THE HAGUE, Member of the Bureau of the CEPEJ/ Member of/Membre du CEPEJ-GT 2004
NORWAY/NORVEGE
Sissel ENDRESEN, Head of the Judicial Department, National Courts Administration, TRONDHEIM
POLAND/POLOGNE
Tadeusz ERECINSKI, Professor of Law, President of the Supreme Court of Poland (Civil Chamber), WARSAW
PORTUGAL
Pedro DURO, Deputy Director, Legal and Planning Office, Ministry of Justice, LISBONNE : Apologised/Excusé
João Arsenio OLIVEIRA, Legal consultant, Legal and Planning Office, Ministry of Justice, LISBONNE
ROMANIA/ROUMANIE
Ion POPA, Director, Direction of Organisation, Human Resources and Judiciary Statistics, Ministry of Justice, BUCHAREST
RUSSIA/RUSSIE
Yury BERESTNEV, Director of Department, State Legal Directorate of the President of the Russian Federation (GPU), MOSCOW
SAN‑MARINO/SAINT MARIN : Apologised / Excusé
SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO / SERBIE-MONTENEGRO
Milica VLAŠIĆ-KOTUROVIĆ, Councillor, Ministry of Justice, BELGRADE
SLOVAK REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE SLOVAQUE
Alena POLÁČKOVÁ, Judge of the Court of District Bratislava 1, BRATISLAVA
SLOVENIA/SLOVENIE
Marko ŠORLI, Vice-President of the Supreme Court, LJUBLJANA
SPAIN/ESPAGNE : Apologised / Excusée
SWEDEN/SUEDE
Johan SANGBORN, Deputy Director, Division for Procedural Law and Court Issues, Ministry of Justice, STOCKHOLM
SWITZERLAND/SUISSE: Apologised / Excusée
"THE FORMER YOUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"/"L'EX-REPUBLIQUE YOUGOSLAVE DE MACEDOINE"
Nada PENOVA, State Adviser, Ministry of Justice, SKOPJE
TURKEY/TURQUIE
Mehlika AYTAÇ, Head of Department of International Law and Foreign Relations, General Directorate of International Law and Foreign Law, Ministry of Justice, ANKARA
Aydın Sefa AKAY, Conseiller Juridique, Adjoint au Représentant Permanent de la Turquie auprès du Conseil de l'Europe
UKRAINE
Oleksander MARCHENKO, Chief Advisor, Administration of the President of Ukraine, Foreign Policy Directorate, KYIV
UNITED KINGDOM/ROYAUME‑UNI
Deirdre BOYLAN, Policy Officer, European Policy Unit, LONDON
John STACEY, Head of Civil Business Branch, Customer Services Directorate, The Court Service HQ, LONDON
***
OBSERVER STATES / ETATS OBSERVATEURS
HOLY SEE / SAINT-SIEGE
Odile GANGHOFER, Docteur en droit, Mission permanente du Saint-Siège, STRASBOURG
CANADA : Apologised / Excusé
JAPAN / JAPON
Noriaki YOSHIMURA, Counsellor, Judicial System Department, Ministry of Justice, TOKYO
Naoyuki IWAI, Consul Général du Japon, Consulat Général du Japon, STRASBOURG
Pierre DREYFUS, Assistant, Consulat Général du Japon, STRASBOURG
MEXICO / MEXIQUE : Apologised / Excusé
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE : Apologised / Excusés
***
OBSERVERS / OBSERVATEURS
COUNCIL OF THE BARS AND LAW SOCIETIES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION / CONSEIL DES BARREAUX DE l’UNION EUROPEENNE (CCBE)
Jana WURSTOVA, Head, International Department, Czech Bar Association,PRAHA, CZECH REPUBLIC / REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION OF JUDGES / Association européenne des MAGISTRATS (EAJ)
Günter WORATSCH, Honorary President, President of the Landesgerichts für Strafsachen, WIEN, AUSTRIA / AUTRICHE
EUROPEAN UNION OF RECHTSPFLEGER / UNION EUROPEENNE DES GREFFIERS DE JUSTICE (EUR)
Jean-Jacques KUSTER, Représentant de l’EUR auprès du Conseil de l’Europe, Tribunal d’Instance, STRASBOURG, FRANCE
Gabriele GUARDA, Presidente de l’EUR, Dirigente giustizia al tribunale di prima istanza di Padova, PADOVA, ITALY / ITALIE
Emanuele CALDARERA, Représentant du Bureau de l’EUR, Directeur Général, Ministère de la Justice (Ministero della Giustizia, Direzione Generale Ufficio Speciale per Napoli), Nuovo Palazzo di Giustizia, NAPOLI, ITALIE
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF BAILIFFS / UNION INTERNATIONALE DES HUISSIERS DE JUSTICE ET OFFICIERS JUDICIAIRES
Léo NETTEN, 1er vice-président, PARIS, FRANCE
Bernard MENUT, Secrétaire du bureau, MIREBEAU, FRANCE
THE HAGUE CONFERENCE OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW/CONFERENCE DE LA HAYE DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE : Apologised / Excusée
WORLD BANK / BANQUE MONDIALE
Klaus DECKER, WASHINGTON, Etat-Unis/USA
***
EUROPEAN COMMISSION / COMMISSION EUROPEENNE
Katarzyna GRZYBOWSKA, DG JAI – Unité A-5, BRUXELLES
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION / CONSEIL DE L’UNION EUROPEENNE : Apologised / Excusé
***
PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE / ASSEMBLEE PARLEMENTAIRE DU CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE
Ionel OLTEANU, Member of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Palais du Parlement, BUCHAREST, ROMANIA / ROUMANIE
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS / COUR EUROPENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME
Lawrence EARLY, Deputy Section 2 Registrar, Registry, European Court of Human Rights/Greffier adjoint à la section 2, Greffe de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme, STRASBOURG
Paola TONARELLI-LACORE, Registry, European Court of Human Rights/Greffe de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme, STRASBOURG
EUROPEAN COMMITTEE ON LEGAL CO-OPERATION / COMITE EUROPEEN DE COOPERATION JURIDIQUE (CDCJ)
Inge Lorange BACKER, President of the European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ), Director General Legislation Department, Ministry of Justice, P.O.Box 8005 Dep., N-0030 OSLO, NORWAY : Apologised/Excusé
Edwin KILBY, Head of European Policy Unit, Department of Constitutional Affairs, LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM / ROYAUME UNI
EUROPEAN COMMITTEE ON CRIME PROBLEMS / COMITE EUROPEEN DES PROBLEMES CRIMINELS (CDPC) : Apologised / Excusé
STEERING COMMITTEE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS / COMITE DIRECTEUR POUR LES DOIRTS DE L’HOMME (CDDH)
Vitaliano ESPOSITO, Président du CDDH, Premier Avocat Général, Cour de Cassation, Palais de justice, ROME, ITALY / ITALIE
***
CEPEJ-GT 2004 EXPERTS
FRANCE
Jean-Paul JEAN, Substitut général Cour d’Appel de Paris, Professeur associé à l’Université de Poitiers, Parquet Général, Palais de Justice, PARIS (Chair / Président)
NORWAY/NORVEGE
Jon T. JOHNSEN, Professor in Law, Dean, Faculty of law, University of Oslo, OSLO
POLAND / POLOGNE
Beata Z. GRUSZCZYŃSKA, Institute of Justice, Ministry of Justice, WARSAW
UNITED KINGDOM / ROYAUME UNI
Hazel GENN, Professor of Socio-Legal Studies, Faculty of Laws, University College London, Bentham House, LONDON
SCIENTIFIC EXPERTS / EXPERT SCIENTIFIQUES
Philippe de KOSTER, Avocat Général, Auditoriat Général près la Cour du travail de Mons, BELGIUM / BELGIQUE
Roland ESHUIS, Researcher of the WODC, Dutch ministry of Justice, WODC, THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS / PAYS-BAS
***
SECRETARIAT
Fax: +33 3 88 41 37 45
e-mail: [email protected]
Guy De VEL, Director General of Legal Affairs / Directeur Général des Affaires Juridiques
Stéphane LEYENBERGER, Division for Justice and Legal Programmes, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs, Secretary of the Commission / Division de la Justice et des Programmes juridiques, Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques, Secrétaire de la Commission,
Philippe BIJU-DUVAL, Private Law Department, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs / Service du Droit Privé, Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques
José-Maria FERNANDEZ-VILLALOBOS, Private Law Department, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs / Service du Droit Privé, Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques
Nathalie WAWRZYNIAK, Private Law Department, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs / Service du Droit Privé, Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques
Jean-Pierre GEILLER, Private Law Department, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs / Service du droit Privé, Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques
Elisabeth HEURTEBISE, Private Law Department, Directorate General I -Legal Affairs / Service du Droit Privé, Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques
Galina WASSILIEVA, Trainee / stagiaire
Interprètes / Interpreters
Sally BAILEY
Martine CARALY
Julia TANNER