Strasbourg, 26 October 2007

CEPEJ- SATURN(2007)12

EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE

(CEPEJ)

Groupe de Pilotage of the SATURN Centre for judicial time management

 (CEPEJ-SATURN)

2^nd meeting

Strasbourg, 18 – 19 October 2007

MEETING REPORT

Report prepared by the Secretariat

Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs

1.    The Groupe de pilotage of the SATURN Centre for the study and analysis of judicial time management held its second meeting on 18 and 19 March 2007 in Strasbourg, with Mr Jacques BÜHLER (Switzerland) in the chair.

2.    The Group welcomed Mr Irakli ADEISHVILI (Georgia), designated by the Bureau to replace Ms Ekaterine TKESHELASHVILI, who had recently been appointed Minister of Justice of Georgia - the Group welcomed her appointment. The Secretariat conveyed the apologies of Ms Jana WURSTOVA (Czech Republic) who was unable to attend the meeting.

3.    The agenda appears in Appendix I and the list of participants in Appendix II of this report.

1.   Information by the Secretariat

4.    The Group was informed that the electronic Scheme for evaluating European judicial systems, reserved for national correspondents, had been brought into operation for the 2006-2008 evaluation cycle.  The replies to the questionnaire were to be submitted by the end of 2007, with a new report due to be adopted by the CEPEJ in the summer of 2008.

2.   Draft questionnaire on common case categories, judicial time-frames and delays

5.    The Group considered the replies submitted, during a trial phase, by six pilot courts in response to the draft questionnaire (CEPEJ-SATURN(2007)3).

6.    The Chair expressed its sincere gratitude to the pilot courts, noting they had played the game and brought substantial added value to the work of the Group.  It was clear from these replies that with some amendments, the questionnaire could be an effective tool for collecting relevant information about length of proceedings and for preparing guidelines on judicial time management.

7.    The Groupe decided to revise the draft questionnaire in the light of the pilot courts’ replies, noting the similarities in some of the replies and the difficulties encountered in answering others.  Various proposals for amendments were discussed and adopted by the Group.

8.    With regard to the three case studies presented at the end of the questionnaire, the Group agreed as follows:

§  the case studies should focus on proceedings before the court concerned, with the court being asked to describe in detail the different stages of its proceedings, including timeframes for each one;

§  if it wished, the respondent could also provide information on the stages before (e.g. investigation stage in criminal cases or application to an authority to reconsider its decision in administrative cases) and after the court action (e.g. appeal to a higher authority or execution phase);

§  the amounts in dispute would not be indicated in absolute value terms; instead, reference should be made to “an amount in dispute falling under the competence of your court";

§  for consistency’s sake, the names of all the parties would appear in capital letters in the three cases.  

9.    The experts who had originally prepared the case studies were invited to revise the text in the light of the above, and to send it to the Secretariat by 15 November 2007.

10.  The Group instructed the Secretariat to produce, by the beginning of November, a revised version bearing in mind what had been discussed at the meeting.  The following timetable was agreed:

§  further comments by the experts  - mid-November 2007;

§  questionnaire to be sent by the Secretariat to all the pilot courts, inviting them to consult other typical courts in their country as well – beginning of December 2007;

§  courts’ replies to be sent to the Secretariat: mid-February 2008.

11.  The Group agreed to entrust the task of analysing the replies to a scientific expert, to be appointed by the Secretariat (it was suggested that Mr Marco FABRI at the Bologna Institute of Research on Judicial Systems be consulted), with the following remit:

§  the scientific expert would examine the pilot courts’ replies, endeavouring to spot trends and draw specific conclusions about procedural timeframes with a view to developing tools for obtaining a better practical knowledge of these timeframes;

§  where necessary, he would contact the pilot courts in order to clarify their replies;

§  he would prepare conclusions with a view to providing guidelines for judicial time management.

3.   Draft guidelines [green book] for judicial time management

12.  Mr Alan UZELAC submitted an outline for the document containing guidelines for judicial time management.

13.  The Group thanked Mr UZELAC for this preliminary work and provisionally approved the outline.  It recommended that the draft be forwarded to the scientific expert analysing the pilot courts’ replies to the questionnaire, to help him draft his report (see § 11 above).

14.  The Group agreed to discuss this matter further in the light of the information collected via the pilot courts.  It agreed that what was needed was a relatively short, practical and specific document.  It was suggested that the scientific expert in charge of analysing replies to the questionnaire be asked to prepare the guidelines as well.

4.   Follow-up to the on-going work

15.  The Group agreed to continue its work in line with the decisions referred to in paragraphs 9 to 11 above.  It planned to hold its first meeting in 2008 once it had had a chance to examine the draft report, ideally during the third week in May.

5.   Other business

16.  The Group agreed to return to the business of determining a uniform method for calculating judicial timeframes in the light of the information gathered through the pilot courts.  This method could then be incorporated in the guidelines for judicial time management.  

17.  The Chair proposed that the Group consider carrying out a study alongside the one prepared by the CEPEJ on time management in Nordic courts (CEPEJ(2006)14), this time for southern European courts.  It was agreed to submit this proposal to the CEPEJ plenary meeting.  Mr Jon JOHNSEN said he would be happy to lend his expertise to the project.

aPPENDIX I                                

AGENDA / ORDRE DU JOUR

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

2.         Information by the President of the Group and the Secretariat /

            Information du Président du Groupe et du Secrétariat

3.         Draft questionnaire on common case categories, judicial timeframes and delays / Projet de questionnaire sur les typologies d'affaires, les délais judiciaires et les retards de procédure

-     Analysis of the answers given by 5 pilot courts /

Analyse des réponses de 5 tribunaux-référents

-     Finalisation and adoption of the questionnaire, including the common case categories  Finalisation et adoption du questionnaire, y compris la typologie d'affaires

4.         Draft guidelines [Green book] for judicial time management /

Projet de lignes directrices [livre vert] pour la maîtrise du temps judiciaires

5.         Follow up to the on-going work / Suivi des travaux

6.         Other business / Questions diverses

APPENDIX II                         

List of participants / Liste des participants

Irakli ADEISHVILI, Chair of Civil Chamber of Tbilisi District Court, Member of the High Council of the Judiciary, Tbilisi, Georgia

Jacques BÜHLER, Secrétaire Général suppléant, Tribunal fédéral suisse, Lausanne, SUISSE (Chair of the Groupe de pilotage / Président du Groupe de pilotage)

Gaby EMAN, Advisor, Directorate General for the Administration of Justice and Law Enforcement, Instruments Department, Ministry of Justice, The Hague, THE NETHERLAND

Giacomo OBERTO, Magistrat, Tribunal de Grande Instance de Turin, ITALIE

 

Jon T. JOHNSEN, Professor in Law, Dean of the Faculty of law, University of Oslo, NORWAY

Alan UZELAC, Ph.D. Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb, CROATIA

Jana WURSTOVA, Lawyer, Adviser, Czech Bar Association, Prague, Czech republic (apologized / excusée)

John STACEY, Ministry of Justice, Head of Civil and Family Procedures Branch, HM Court Service, Civil Law and Justice Division, London, UNITED KINGDOM

Stephanie SANDISON, Ministry of Justice, HM Court Service, Civil Law and Justice Division, London, UNITED KINGDOM

***

OBSERVERS / OBSERVATEURS

EUROPEAN UNION OF RECHTSPFLEGER AND COURT CLERKS/UNION EUROPEENNE DES GREFFIERS DE JUSTICE (EUR)

Michel CRAMET, Coordonnateur, Service administratif régional de la Cour d’Appel de Lyon, France

***

SECRETARIAT

Directorate Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs – Justice Division /

Direction générale des droits de l’Homme et des affaires juridiques  – Division de la Justice

Fax: +33 3 88 41 37 43 - E-mail: [email protected]

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

Pim ALBERS, Special Advisor to the CEPEJ, Tel: +33 88 41 47 74, e-mail: [email protected]

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

Elisabeth HEURTEBISE, Assistante, Tel : +33 3 88 41 35 54, Fax : +33 3 88 41 37 45, e-mail: [email protected]

Interpreters / Interprètes

Didier Jungling

Angela Brewer

Christine Trapp