Strasbourg, 14 November 2007

CEPEJ-GT-EVAL(2007)14

European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ)

Working party on the evaluation of judicial systems (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL) - 8th meeting, 8-9 November 2007 - Meeting report

Report prepared by the Secretariat

Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs

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 8th meeting at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg on 8 and 9 November 2007 with Mr Jean-Paul JEAN (France) in the Chair.

2.    The Chair apologised on behalf of Mr TRIPALO (Croatia) and Mr VINOGRADOV (Russian Federation), who were unable to attend the meeting.

3.    The agenda and the list of participants appear in Appendices I and II to this report respectively.

      1.   Information by the Secretariat

4.    The Chair reported on his statement to the 1005th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (26 September 2007).  The CEPEJ’s 2006 activity report (CEPEJ(2007)7) had been approved, along with the new scheme for evaluating judicial systems (CEPEJ(2007)10).

5.    The Secretariat announced that, as part of the restructuring of the Council Secretariat, the Justice Division, which was responsible for the secretariat of the CEPEJ and the CCJE, had also been assigned responsibility for the secretariat of the Consultative Council of European Prosecutors (CCPE).

2.   Analysis of the in-depth studies conducted on the basis of the 2006 Evaluation Report

6.    Five of the six studies selected by the CEPEJ were analysed by the GT‑EVAL.  It was agreed that the last study on “the administration and management of court systems” would be considered at the start of 2008.  The working party extended sincere thanks to the various research teams and congratulated them on the high quality of their work, which had been done within very tight deadlines.

7.    One expert said that, in future, it would be necessary to define stricter criteria for evaluating the studies and deciding whether or not they should be published.

8.    In general terms, the experts agreed to ask the authors of the studies approved to complete them, taking account of the following points:

§  an abstract (approximately 20 lines) would have to be drawn up,

§  a warning would have to be inserted, pointing out that the study was mainly based on the CEPEJ’s 2006 report, which concerned 2004 data,

§  the study would have to mention the dates on which the content had been finalised,

§  the study should include a conclusion, also setting out prospects for future work,

§  an appendix should include the text of the CEPEJ evaluation scheme questions used in the study.

9.    The experts also underlined that the specific conclusions and recommendations concerning the CEPEJ’s procedure for evaluating judicial systems (for instance, recommendations on including new questions in the evaluation system or on dealing with the data in a certain way) should be presented in separate documents for internal CEPEJ use so that the studies themselves could be accessible to a wider public.

10.  The working party agreed to recommend that the CEPEJ publish on its website and in the “CEPEJ Studies” series the following studies:

§  “Access to justice in Europe”, prepared by the University of Nancy (France), in co-operation with the International Institute of Comparative Law of Lausanne (Switzerland), with a contribution by Ms Viennot (France).  The experts noted the excellent use made of the information available in the CEPEJ’s 2006 report and underlined the usefulness of the study for policymakers and judicial practitioners in the member states.  It would be necessary to take account of certain comments made by the researchers when the evaluation scheme was updated.  Some of the recommendations, which were aimed more at the CEPEJ than at the bodies concerned in the member states or the public, could be removed from the report and presented separately.

§  “Monitoring and evaluation of the court system: a comparative study”, prepared by the universities of Maastricht, Utrecht (Netherlands) and Bologna (Italy).  The experts endorsed the publication of the report, given its value in terms of evaluation methodology, which was of direct relevance to the work of the CEPEJ.  However, they noted that the study was confined to a limited number of countries, the choice of which would have to be explained in greater detail in the introduction in the context of the Council of Europe.  They also asked the authors clearly to indicate the sources of the statistical information used (interviews, analyses of the data in the CEPEJ report, etc).  Lastly, they recommended that the authors balance out and harmonise the conclusions presented for each of the countries studied and (even though the report used was based on 2004 data) take account of the recent developments in Croatia and Italy in the field studied.

§  “Use of information and communication technologies (ICT) in judicial systems of European states”, prepared by the Research Institute on Judicial Systems of Bologna (Italy), the University of Utrecht (Netherlands), the London School of Economics (United Kingdom) and the Finnish Ministry of Justice, with the participation of Mr OGURLU from the University of Istanbul (Turkey).  The experts endorsed the publication of the study, given the very useful information it contained, which was directly related to an area vital to improving the efficiency of justice, on which major work was also under way in the European Union.  However, they asked the authors to draw more on the information in the CEPEJ’s 2006 report and in the individual replies from the member states.  It would also be necessary to clarify the title so as to show that only some member states were covered.  Lastly, the experts recommended that the information on Turkey, which was set out in an appendix, be included in the body of the text.

§  “The execution of court decisions”, prepared by the University of Nancy (France) and the International Institute of Comparative Law of Lausanne (Switzerland).  It was pointed out that, in accordance with the decision taken by the CEPEJ at its 9th meeting, the Bureau had approved the transmission of the study to the Committee of Ministers as part of the monitoring procedure.  The experts noted the excellent use made of the information available in the CEPEJ’s 2006 report and underlined the usefulness of the study for policymakers and judicial practitioners in the member states.  They also noted that the study had been conducted with the support of the International Union of Judicial Officers (UIHJ).  It would be particularly important for the CEPEJ to consider the recommendations and draft guidelines put forward by the authors, possibly in connection with new activities.

11.  The GT-EVAL also recommended that the CEPEJ publish on its website the study “Judicial training and education assessment tool – Meeting the changing training needs of judges in Europe” prepared by the University of Birmingham School of Law (United Kingdom), the Institute of Higher Judicial Studies (France) and the universities of Bologna and Florence (Italy).  However, the experts believed that this was a different kind of study, which, unlike the others, involved more of a methodological analysis than use of the information in the CEPEJ’s 2006 report to draw up operational recommendations and conclusions for policymakers and practitioners.  In order to derive maximum benefit from this study, which it believed was most interesting, the GT‑EVAL therefore recommended that it be forwarded to the Lisbon Network with the suggestion that the network use it in its activities aimed at improving judicial training in the member states.

12.  The GT-EVAL agreed that the recommended publication of these studies could not take place until the amendments and additions mentioned in paragraphs 8 to 10 above were made by the authors (by 1 January 2008).

3.   Implementation of the 2006 – 2008 evaluation cycle

13.  The Secretariat confirmed that the electronic version of the evaluation scheme was now operational.  To date, only 11 national correspondents had consulted the restricted site set up for them.  It was agreed that the Secretariat would contact the other correspondents directly to check whether they had the necessary information for their data-gathering work.

14.  The Secretariat said that the French Ministry of Justice would provide it with an official (chief registrar) for the duration of the preparation of the report (nine months).  The GT-EVAL welcomed France’s support for the evaluation process.

15.  The experts studied the candidatures submitted to the Secretariat following the call for the recruitment of a scientific expert to process the statistical data.  The GT-EVAL recommended that the Secretariat appoint Ms Marta Zimolag (Poland) to the post, given her experience in processing statistical data and in the field of justice.  It proposed that the candidature of Mr Ronald Delesclefs for Quality Improvements (Switzerland) be kept in reserve.  It was agreed that the Secretariat would contact Ms Zimolag shortly and offer her a contract as scientific expert.

16.  The working party agreed that the new evaluation process would have to be based on the experience of the previous exercise so that more use could be made of the data gathered in the first phase of preparation of the general report.  It was agreed that the members would share out the chapters in the report and take an active part in their preparation, in conjunction with the scientific experts and the Secretariat.

17.  The experts agreed that it would be necessary to hold two working meetings in the first half of 2008 to prepare the report, one of which would be combined with the meeting of national correspondents.

4.   Implementation of a pilot peer evaluation process

18.  In accordance with the instructions issued at the 9th plenary meeting of the CEPEJ and the 10th meeting of the Bureau, the GT-EVAL discussed and adopted objectives and methodology for the trial implementation of a co-operation process based on peer evaluation of judicial statistics (document CEPEJ(2007)25).  In particular, the discussions drew on the European Statistics Code of Practice published by the European Union and the statistical peer review guide published by Eurostat.

19.  The pilot exercise would concern three countries represented on the working party: Bosnia and Herzegovina, France and Poland.  During the first half of 2008, each of the three countries would be visited by two or three members of the GT-EVAL, with the visits being organised in accordance with the content of document CEPEJ(2005)25.  The GT-EVAL and the CEPEJ would take stock of the exercise after the three visits with a view to extending it to all countries taking part in the evaluation of judicial systems.

5.   Draft CEPEJ guidelines on judicial statistics

20.  The GT-EVAL continued the preparation of guidelines on the basis of the preliminary draft presented for information at the 9th plenary meeting of the CEPEJ (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL(2007)4Prov3).  It agreed to resume preparation of the draft guidelines at its next meeting, taking account, in particular, of the elements in the European Union and Eurostat documents mentioned at paragraph 18 above and the conclusions of the pilot peer evaluation exercise.  The draft guidelines would also be discussed at the meeting of national correspondents in spring 2008 before being submitted to the CEPEJ for adoption, if possible at the 11th plenary meeting (summer 2008).

6.   Establishment of a list of key data

21.  In accordance with the instructions issued at the 9th plenary meeting of the CEPEJ, the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL discussed and adopted the draft CEPEJ guidelines on judicial statistics (CEPEJ(2007)26Prov) and agreed to submit them to the CEPEJ for approval at its 10th plenary meeting.

22.  This limited version of the evaluation scheme would enable states’ key judicial data to be gathered on a voluntary basis between two evaluation exercises.  States which so desired would be asked on a trial basis to submit data for 2007 in the second half of 2008 using this method.

7.   Co-operation with the European Union

23.  The Secretariat notified the GT-EVAL of the letter sent by the Secretary General to the Vice- President of the European Commission, Franco Frattini, following the decision taken by the Ministers’ Deputies at their 1005th meeting: “in line with the Memorandum of Understanding between the Council of Europe and the European Union signed on 17 May 2007, reiterated the availability of the Council of Europe to co-operate with the relevant bodies of the European Union so that the process of the CEPEJ for evaluating European judicial systems can be duly taken into account within the European Union and instructed the Secretary General to inform these bodies.”

24.  Several members of the GT-EVAL reported on the work under way at the European Commission on the collection of statistical data in the criminal field.  They underlined that it would be useful to monitor the progress of the work to see how the CEPEJ process could contribute to it.

 

Annexe 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.         Analysis of the in-depth studies conducted from the 2006 Evaluation Report / Analyse des études approfondies conduites sur la base du Rapport d'évaluation 2006

4.         Implementation of the 2006 – 2008 evaluation cycle / Mise en oeuvre du prochain cycle d'évaluation 2006 – 2008

5.         Implementation of a pilot peer evaluation process / Mise en en d'un processus pilote d'évaluation par les pairs

6.         Setting up of a list of key data / Etablissement d'une liste de données clé

7.         Draft CEPEJ guidelines on judicial statistics / Projet de lignes directrices de la CEPEJ en matière de statistiques judiciaires

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

9.         Any other business / Questions diverses

Annexe II

List of participants / Liste des participants

Fausto de SANTIS, Directeur Général au sein du Bureau de l’organisation judiciaire, Ministère de la Justice, ROME, ITALIE (President of CEPEJ / Président de la CEPEJ)

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 Justice, MADRID, ESPAGNEmailto:-  

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

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 Général près la Cour d’Appel de Paris, Professeur associé à l’Université de Poitiers, Parquet Général, PARIS, FRANCE (President of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL / Président du CEPEJ-GT-EVAL)

Georg STAWA, Public Prosecutor, Directorate for Central Administration and Coordination (Dept. PR1), Federal Ministry of Justice, VIENNA, AUSTRIA

Dražen TRIPALO, Judge, Criminal Department, Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia, ZAGREB, CROATIA – Apologized / Excusé

Frans van der DOELEN, Programme Manager of the Department of the Justice System, Ministry of Justice, THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS

Mikhail VINOGRADOV, Lawyer, State Legal Directorate of the President of the Russian Federation (GGPU), MOSCOW, RUSSIAN FEDERATION– Apologized / Excusé

OBSERVERS / OBSERVATEURS

European Union of Rechtspfleger / Union européenne des greffiers de justice et Rechtspfleger

Harald Markus WISLCH, Amstgericht München, MUNICH, GERMANY

SECRETARIAT

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

Direction générale des droits de l’Homme et affaires juridiques(DG-HL) –

Justice Division / 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 (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]

Elisabeth HEURTEBISE, Assistante, Tel : +33 (0)3 88 41 35 54, Fax : +33 3 88 41 37 45, e-mail: [email protected]

Interpreters / Interprètes

Monique PLAMIER

Christine TRAPP