Strasbourg, 29 May 2006                                                               CEPEJ-GT-EVAL(2006)4

EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE

(CEPEJ)

Working GROUP ON EVALUATING JUDICIAL SYSTEMS

 (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL)

Meeting of the National correspondents, Strasbourg, 22 – 23 May 2006 Meeting report

1.    The Network of the national correspondents of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), entrusted with the coordination of the national answers to the revised Scheme for evaluating judicial systems, held its meeting at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg from 22 to 23 May 2006.  The meeting was chaired by Mr Jean-Paul JEAN (France), Chair of the CEPEJ Working Group on the evaluation of judicial systems (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL).

2.    The agenda appears in Appendix I and the list of participants in Appendix II.

1.   Information by the Secretariat

3.    On behalf of the Director General of Legal Affairs, Guy DE VEL, the Secretary of the CEPEJ, Stéphane LEYENBERGER, welcomed the participants. He underlined that the objective of the meeting was not to discuss a draft report, but to validate data and choices of the scientific expert, Ana-Maria FALCONI (France) and the members of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL.

4.    The Secretariat recalled the proposed timeframe for the adoption and publication of the report:

§  draft report submitted by the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL to the members of the CEPEJ by mid June 2006;

§  discussion of the report by the CEPEJ at its 7th plenary meeting (Rome, 6 – 7 July 2006) in view of its adoption;

§  discussion of the report at the Committee of Ministers in October 2006;

§  publication of the report after the discussion by the Committee of Ministers, possibly within the framework of the European Day of Justice (25 October).

2.   Presentation of the working principles of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL

5.    The Chairman of the meeting, Jean-Paul JEAN, underlined that this forum was a unique opportunity for the CEPEJ experts to work directly with the officials entrusted with the collection of data, as a key step of the process for evaluating judicial systems. He presented the working principles followed by the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL in the preparation of the report.

6.    It was reminded that the revised Scheme and its Explanatory Notes had been prepared by the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL and adopted by the CEPEJ taking into account the conclusions of the pilot exercise conducted in 2004.

7.    He commended on the work of the national correspondents to collect data, often from many national sources, as well as on the way they had been processed so far by the scientific expert.

8.    He reminded that 43 member states had replied to the revised Scheme sent in September 2005. Switzerland, "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", Ukraine and Serbia (for Serbia and Montenegro) had not participated in the exercise. However the representatives of Serbia and Ukraine indicated that their reply could be sumitted to the Secretariat before the end of the week. It was agreed that the scientific expert would try to take into account key data from these answers, being understood that it would not be possible at this late stage to include all data.

9.    The Chairman stressed that at this stage of the preparation, the draft Report as well as national data should remain strictly confidential. He reminded the participants that they had to respect strictly these internal rules.

10. He invited the national correspondents to work on the basis of the Interim report prepared by the scientific expert (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL (2006) 3 Rev 2). He noted that this document included all data available as such, for the purpose of the discussion, but could not be considered as a pre-report.

11. The Chairman distinguished 3 types of data in the working document:

§  reliable data,

§  data to be discarded from the final report (unreliable data),

§  data that needed to be further discussed to ensure their reliability.

12. It was stressed that the Interim report included some comparisons with data of 2002 for key variables, in order to assess the quality of the answers and identify potential difficulties. However it was made clear that the Edition 2006 would present only data of 2004, the forthcoming Report being considered as the first regular Report – the previous process being a pilot exercise. The report would make it clear that no comparison with the pilot Report could be drawn as ratios or variables used may vary.

13. The Chairman reminded that providing national data was the responsibility of the national correspondents. Therefore the experts would not change data ex officio, without the agreement of the relevant national correspondents.

14. The possibility to verify data (for example GDP information, public expenditure, inhabitants) with other sources (IMF, World Bank, Eurostat) was introduced. However it was agreed that such data would not be used without specific agreement of the correspondents.

15. The main goal was that all reliable data on key-figures should be presented in the Report. Problematic areas to be discussed in particular were:

§  budgets and expenditures,

§  number of courts, judges, staff

§  salaries,

§  case-information, including lengths of proceedings,

§  timeframes.

16. National correspondents were invited to hand over to the Secretariat comments, modifications or suggestions for improving the quality of their reply. It was agreed that changes could be submitted in writing until 25 May to the Secretariat. Subsequently, national correspondents were invited to send to the Secretariat a revised version of the full national answer to the revised Scheme, including all changes that might have been requested by national correspondents in the course of the preparation phase. These final national answers would be published on the CEPEJ Web site, in addition to the CEPEJ report. [A specific e-mail on this issue was sent by the Secretariat to the national correspondents on 24 May].

17. The Chairman indicated that each topic of the report should be addressed having in mind the priorities and the fundamental principles of the Council of Europe. Specific difficulties regarding specific figures or situations could be overcome by reasoning in this global context: beyond gross figures, the interest of the CEPEJ report lies in the main trends, evolutions and common issues for European states.

18. In preparing the report, experts and national correspondents were encouraged to keep in mind the long term objective of the process: defining a core of key quantitative and qualitative data to be collected and processed equally in all member states.

19. Some participants underlined the usefulness of the pilot report for their judicial reforms and insisted that the new report should be as complete as possible.

20. Finally, the Chairman underlined that after the publication of the report presenting the current situation of judicial systems in the European states, the CEPEJ would carry on an analytical phase, where specific topics would be addressed more in depth on the basis of the facts and figures available.

3.   Interim "Report on European judicial systems – Edition 2006"

21. The scientific expert thanked the national correspondents for their valuable cooperation and support in the preparation phase.

General comments

22. Participants underlined the issue of comparing states. Experts were called to address comparisons with specific care to avoid comparing incomparable data. The report should make it clear that the specific comments which would appear with the figures were essential for the interpretation of these figures.

23. The scientific expert explained that some data could not be analysed in a proper statistical manner, due to the fact that member states made different use of the answers: ‘"not available", "not applicable" or the blanks.  It was agreed that, as a principle, only positive answers would be addressed, where appropriate, which could enable factorial analysis.

24. Some participants stressed problems in definitions and difficulties to compare data of different judicial systems. They highlighted the need to explain in the comments, where appropriate, specific differences in the results presented by the report. For example:

§  in the table for court budgets, some countries were not able to include all financial figures, because local communities were not included and counted in the total budget allocated to courts;

§  in some systems, it was difficult to specify data regarding the budget for  judges and the budget for prosecutors;

§  the way of counting or not counting amounts in the budgets dedicated to the payment of pensions appeared as a specific difficulty to take into account.

25. It was proposed that ratios presented in the final report would be calculated only from reliable variables such as the GDP or the number of inhabitants. The issue of the average annual gross salary should be clarified for some countries, in particular as regards the exchange rate applied. The annual public expenditures would not been taken into account as the quality and homogeneity of the answers were not high enough to be used as a solid variable. The Chairman concluded that this last issue would have to be further worked on for the next evaluation processes.

Means allocated to courts

26. It was agreed that specific attention should be paid to the elements included in the public expenditures allocated to courts, so that given data could not be misinterpreted from one country to another. Comments would be essential to explain the differences between the countries concerned.

27. National correspondents were invited to comply carefully with the provisions of the Explanatory Note, which excludes in particular the budget of the prosecution system and the prison system. It was agreed that the specific budgets of judicial training structures as well as the budget for the functioning of the high councils of justice would not be included in this amount. Furthermore, countries were invited to exclude the amounts possibly included in the budgets to pay pensions of public officials. Should this not be possible, experts would have to indicate it clearly in the comments.

28. It was agreed that all the courts concerned by the cases addressed by the CEPEJ should be taken into account in its report: e.g. civil, commercial, family, labour, administrative and criminal law cases. It was noted that specific courts might be funded by specific budgets of different administrations (i.e. Ministry of Labour for labour courts).

Judges

29. After a discussion on what should be included in the total amount of judges, several representatives indicated that they would revise their answers on this issue. Specificities of several countries would have to be underlined in the comments.

Non-judge staff

30. After a discussion on what should be included in the amounts of non-judges staff, several representatives indicated that they would revise their answers on this issue. It was agreed that public bailiffs would not be included under this category.

Public prosecutors

31. It was judged useful to look at the functions and tasks of public prosecutors when the different functions were to be compared. Considering the lack of homogeneity in the answers, it was decided that Table 56 of the Interim report (status of public prosecutors) would not been taken into consideration in the final report.

Small claims

32. Table 34 of the Interim report raised problems of what could be defined as a "small claim". It was agreed that Table 34 would only be used for illustration in the report and not for analysis.

Lengths of proceedings

33. Considering in particular the limited number of replies, participants invited the experts to address lengths of proceedings with particular care in the final report.

Monitoring and evaluation

34. The difference between monitoring and evaluation of court activities had not always been clear for all responding countries. This would have to be taken into account while considering in particular data of tables 60 and 61of the Interim report.

Backlogs and queuing times

35. Many countries replied positively to the questions 57 and 58 of the Scheme.  However the interpretation of data would not be easy vbecause of the lack of quantitative data regarding the lengths of proceedings.

Fair trial

36. The first three columns of Table 63 of the Interim report were not judged useful as they did not bring any added value.

37. Information provided by Table 64 was judged essential in the framework of the Council of Europe, in spite of the limited concrete information available. The Secretariat indicated that the lack of detailed statistical information on the cases regarding Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights was as such an information that could be underlined in the report, with a call to member states to improve their statistical tools in this field, for the sake of the proper implementation of the Strasbourg Court's judgements.

Salaries

38. Participants addressed the issue of the pension schemes and contributions. Experts were invited to include clear comments to differentiate those countries which had included these contributions into the gross annual salaries.

4.   Concluding remarks

39. On behalf of the Bureau of the CEPEJ, Mr. André POTOCKI, Vice-President of the CEPEJ, stressed that the evaluation process was an essential strategic exercise and the heart of the work of the CEPEJ. This work would have to be carried on in a long term perspective, as a major investment to be sharpened progressively, on the basis of the mutual experience of the CEPEJ experts and the national correspondents.


Appendix I

AGENDA / ORDRE DU JOUR

1.    Adoption of the agenda

Adoption de l’ordre du jour

2.   Information by the Secretariat

Information du Secrétariat

3.   Presentation of the working principles of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL by Mr Jean-Paul JEAN, Chair of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL

Présentation des principes d'action du CEPEJ-GT-EVAL par M. Jean-Paul JEAN, Président du CEPEJ-GT-EVAL

4.   Pre-draft "Report of European judicial systems – Edition 2006"

Avant-projet de "Rapport sur les systèmes judiciaires européens – Edition 2006"

§  Presentation by Ms Ana-Maria FALCONI, scientific expert

Présentation par Mme Ana-Maria FALCONI, expert-scientifique

§  Discussion with the national correspondents

Discussion avec les correspondants nationaux

5.               Communication strategy for the Report

Stratégie de communication du Rapport


Appendix II

List of participants / Liste des participants

ALBANIA/ALBANIE

Victor GUMI, Director General of codification, Directory of Foreign Affairs and Public Relations, Ministry of Justice, TIRANA

ANDORRA/ANDORRE

Carme OBIOLS, Secrétaire Générale, Conseil supérieur de la Justice, C/Prat de la Creu 8, ANDORRE LA VIEILLE; Apologised / Excusée

ARMENIA/ARMENIE   

Armen SANOYAN, Chief Specialist, Department of  international Legal Affairs, Ministry of Justice, YEREVAN

AUSTRIA/AUTRICHE

Georg STAWA, Judge assigned to the Ministry of Justice, Federal Ministry of Justice, VIENNA

AZERBAIJAN/AZERBAIDJAN

Ramin GURBANOV, Senior Adviser, Department of Organisation and Analysis, Ministry of Justice, BAKU

BELGIUM/BELGIQUE 

Dietger GEERAERT, Attaché, SPF Justice, Ministère de la Justice, BRUXELLES

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA/BOSNIE-HERZEGOVINE

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

CROATIA/CROATIE

MARIO VUKELIC, Judge to the High Commercial Court, High Commercial Court, ZAGREB

CYPRUS/CHYPRE

Evagoras HADJIDEMETRI, Registrar of the Supreme Court, NICOSIA

Natasa PAPANICOLAOU, Legal Assistant, Supreme Court, NICOSIA; Apologised / Excusée 

CZECH REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

Ivana BORZOVÁ, Head, Department of Civil Supervision, Ministry of Justice,  PRAGUE

ESTONIA/ESTONIE

Timo Ligi, Head of the Court Administration Division, Ministry of Justice, TALLINN

FINLAND/FINLANDE

Piritta KOIVUKOSKI, Project worker, Department of Judicial Administration, Ministry of Justice, HELSINKI 

FRANCE

Hélène DAVO, Chargée de mission, Ministère de la Justice, SAEI, PARIS

André POTOCKI, Conseiller à la Cour de cassation, PARIS; Vice Chair of the CEPEJ/Vice-Président de la CEPEJ

Baudouin  SEYS, Sous-Directeur de la Statistique, Ministère de la Justice, PARIS

Hélène TIMBART , Expert, Ministère de la Justice, PARIS

GEORGIA/GEORGIE

Rusudan TUSHURI, Head of the International Legal Relations Department, Ministry of Justice, TBILISI

GERMANY/ALLEMAGNE

Christian MEYER-SEITZ, Chef du bureau du droit de la procédure civile, Ministère fédéral de la Justice, BERLIN

GREECE/GRECE

Athanasia VASILOPOULOU, Expert, Dept. of special legal Affairs of the EU’s and International Organisations’, Ministry of Justice, ATHENS

HUNGARY/HONGRIE

Gabor SZEPLAKI-NAGY, Conseiller Référendaire à la Cour Suprême de Hongrie, Directeur du Bureau des Droits de l’Homme à la Cour Suprême de Hongrie, BUDAPEST

ICELAND/ISLANDE

Anna Sigriđur ARNARDÓTTIR, Legal Expert, Ministry of Justice and Ecclesiastical Affairs, REYKJAVIK

IRELAND/IRLANDE

Denis BYRNE, Assistant Principal Officer, Courts Policy Division, Department of Justice Equality and Law Reform, DUBLIN; Apologised/Excusé

ITALY/ITALIE

Fausto DE SANTIS, Directeur Général au sein du Bureau de l’organisation judiciaire, Ministère de la Justice, ROME

LATVIA/LETTONIE

Agnija KARLSONE, Head of Public Relation Division, Court Administration, RIGA

LIECHTENSTEIN

Hubert WACHTER, Juriste, Gouvernement de la Principauté du Liechtenstein, VADUZ; Apologised / Excusé

LITHUANIA/LITUANIE

Ilona VIJEIKIENĖ, Senior Specialist, Legal institution’s Department, Ministry of Justice, VILNIUS

LUXEMBOURG 

Yves HUBERTY, Attaché de Gouvernement, Ministère de la justice, LUXEMBOURG-KIRCHBERG

MALTA/MALTE

Marco CACHIA, Head of Secretariat, Parliamentary Secretariat, Ministry for Justice and Home Affairs, VALETTA

Ray ZAMMIT, VALETTA

MOLDOVA

Ms Lilia GRIMALSCHI,  Chef Adjointe à la Direction Agent Gouvernemental, Direction des Relations Internationales et de l’Intégration européenne, Ministère de la Justice, CHISINAU

MONACO 

Jean CURRAU, Assistant Référendaire près de la Cour d’Appel, Conseiller honoraire de la Cour d’Appel, MONACO

NETHERLANDS/PAYS‑BAS

Paul SMIT, WODC, Research and Documentation Centre, Ministry of Justice; Apologised/Excusé


NORWAY/NORVEGE

Karl Otto THORHEIM, Legal Adviser, Ministry of Justice, Lovavdelingen

POLAND/POLOGNE

Cezary Dziurkowski, Judge, Counsellor to the Minister of Justice, Department of International Cooperation and Judicial Assitance, Ministry of Justice, Warsaw

PORTUGAL 

João ARSENIO DE OLIVEIRA, Conseiller juridique, Bureau de la Politique législative et du Plan, Ministère de la Justice, LISBONNE

ROMANIA/ROUMANIE 

Vasilica-Cristi DANILET, Juge, Conseiller du Ministre de la justice, Ministère de la Justice, BUCAREST

THE RUSSISAN FEDERATION/FEDERATION DE RUSSIE

Mikhail VINOGRADOV, Lawyer, State Legal Directorate of the President of the Russian Federation (GGPU), MOSCOW

SERBIAAND MONTENEGRO/SERBIE-MONTENEGRO

Majda KRŠIKAPA, Advisor to the Court on European Integration and Harmonisation of Legislation, Supreme Court of Serbia, BELGRADE

SLOVAK REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE SLOVAQUE

Igor BELKO, Judge, Supreme Court, BRATISLAVA

SLOVENIA/SLOVENIE 

Janko MARINKO, Judge, Secretary General of the Supreme Court, Tavcarjeva 9, SL – 1000 LJUBLJANA, e-mail: [email protected]

SPAIN/ESPAGNE

Elsa GARCIA-MALTRAS DE BLAS, Procureur, Conseillère à la Direction Générale de la coopération juridique internationale, Ministère de la Justice, MADRID

Ildefonso VILLÁN CRIADO, Letrado. Jefe de Sección de Estadística Judicial Consejo General del Poder Judicial (Conseil Général des pouvoirs judiciaires), MADRID

SWEDEN/SUEDE

Catarina BARKATORP, Judge, Consultant, The Swedish National Court Administration, Ministry of Justice, STOCKHOLM;  Apologised/Excusée

Johan SANGBORN, Deputy Director, Division for Procedural and Court Issues, Ministry of Justice, STOCKHOLM; Apologised / Excusé

SWITZERLAND/SUISSE :Apologised / Excusée

TURKEY/TURQUIE

Gökcen TÜRKER, Judge, Ministry of Justice, Directorate General for International Law and Foreign Relations, ANKARA

UKRAINE

Olena YAKOVENKO, Head of Division, International Cooperation Department, Ministry of Justice, KYIV

UNITED KINGDOM/ROYAUME‑UNI

Deirdre BOYLAN, Policy Officer, European and International Policy Division, Department for Constitutional Affairs, LONDON

Scientific expert / Expert scientifique

Ana Maria FALCONI, Expert scientifique

Experts of the GT-EVAL / Experts du GT-EVAL 

Fausto DE SANTIS, Directeur Général au sein du Bureau de l’organisation judiciaire, Ministère de la Justice, ROME, ITALY

Elsa GARCIA-MALTRAS DE BLAS, Procureur, Conseillère à l’Unité d’entraide, Direction Générale des Relations avec l’Administration de la Justice, MADRID, ESPAGNE

Hazel GENN, Professor of Socio-Legal Studies, Faculty of Laws, University College London, LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM; Apologised / Excusée

Beata Z. GRUSZCZYŃSKA, Institute of Justice, Ministry of Justice, WARSAW, POLAND

Jean-Paul JEAN, Substitut général Cour d’Appel de Paris, Professeur associé à l’Université de Poitiers, Parquet Général, PARIS,  FRANCE (Chair of the GT-EVAL / Président du GT-EVAL)

Mikhail VINOGRADOV, Lawyer, State Legal Directorate of the President of the Russian Federation (GGPU), MOSCOW, THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Observers / Observateurs

European Commision / Commission européenne

Katarzyna GRZYBOWSKA, JLS.C-3 Citizenship and Fundamental Rights, Directorate General Justice Freedom and Security, BRUSSELS

SECRETARIAT

Fax: +33 3 88 41 37 43

e-mail: [email protected]

Stéphane LEYENBERGER, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs, Secretary of the CEPEJ / Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques, Secrétaire de la CEPEJ, Tel : +33 3 88 41 34 12, e-mail: [email protected]

Muriel DECOT, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs, Co-Secretary of the CEPEJ / Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques, Co-Secrétaire de la CEPEJ, Tel : +33 3 90 21 44 55,  e-mail : [email protected]

Pim ALBERS, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs, Special Adviser to the CEPEJ /  Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques, Conseiller spécial de la CEPEJ,  Tel / +33 3 90 21 47 74, e-mail : [email protected]

Jean-Pierre GEILLER, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs  / Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques, Tel : +33 3 88 41 22 27, e-mail : [email protected]

Elisabeth HEURTEBISE, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs, Assistant / Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques, Assistante, Tel: +33 3 88 41 35 54, Fax: +33 3 88 41 37 43, e-mail: [email protected]

INTERPRETERS / INTERPRETES

Philippe QUAINE

Christopher TYCZKA

Nicolas GUITTONNEAU