Strasbourg, 15 July 2008
CEPEJ(2008)6
EUROPEAN Commission FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF justice
(CEPEJ)
11th plenary meeting - Strasbourg, 2 – 3 July 2008 - Meeting report
Report prepared by the Secretariat
Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs
|
MAIN DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE CEPEJ The CEPEJ § approved the 2007 Activity Report of the CEPEJ (CEPEJ(2008)1) and decided to forward it to the Committee of Ministers for approval; § adopted, in accordance both with the Action Plan of the 3rd Summit of the Heads of State and government and with its Statute, the "Report on European judicial systems – Edition 2008" (CEPEJ(2008)3), provided that: - comments could be indicated by the delegations to the Secretariat before 15 July 2008 and that the discussions during the present meeting were taken into account; - further comments could be drafted before the end of July 2008 by the experts of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL, under the authority of the CEPEJ Bureau, who were instructed to do so to facilitate the reading and understanding of the statistical data; these comments would be made available to the members of the CEPEJ on the restricted web site at the beginning of August 2008; decided to forward the final report as soon as possible to the Committee of Ministers so that it could take note of it; instructed the experts of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL to prepare a synthesis of the report to facilitate its understanding and reading; this synthesis would be submitted to the members of the CEPEJ for approval through a written procedure and published together with the report; instructed the Secretariat to organise the appropriate publication and dissemination of the report, including through its website, once the Committee of Ministers had taken note of it; decided to publish in extenso, on its website, all the individual answers of the member states to the evaluation Scheme; agreed to pursue the evaluation exercise within the framework of a new cycle whose timeframe would be discussed at the next plenary meeting; agreed, in accordance with its medium-term activity programme, to pursue the analysis of the facts and figures presented in the report, including by opening the exploitation of the data to researchers who would wish to benefit from the scientific support of the CEPEJ, according to modalities to be defined with the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL, under the authority of the CEPEJ Bureau; having due regard to the usefulness of the peer evaluation cooperation process on judicial statistics as it results from the pilot exercise with France, Poland and Bosnia and Herzegovina, instructed the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL to propose at the 12th plenary an appropriate follow up in the light of the conclusions of these visits, so as to enlarge this evaluation process and invited other member states to propose their candidature; invited the member states which wish to do so to submit to the Secretariat before the end of 2008 an updating of some 2007 judicial data according to the document "Key data for justice in Europe" (CEPEJ(2007)27); § took note of the work carried out by the Group de pilotage of the SATURN Centre; § adopted the Checklist for the quality of justice systems and courts (CEPEJ(2008)2, decided to forward it to the Committee of Ministers, the CCJE, the CCPE and other relevant committees of the Council of Europe so that they can make good use of it and invited its members to ensure a wide dissemination of it among the relevant national institutions and organisations; § thanked the Court of Appeal of Catania (Italy) for having invited the Network of pilot courts to held its 3rd plenary meeting on 24 October 2008 within the framework of the European Day of justice; agreed that only those pilot courts which had actively participated in the work of the CEPEJ within the last year would be invited to this meeting; § agreed to organise, within the framework of this Network, a specific working group on second instance issues regarding the court of appeals; § took note with great satisfaction of the Communication of 4 February 2008 by the European Commission setting up the Justice Forum where the CEPEJ is called to play a pre-eminent role and decided to cooperate fully with the activities of this Forum, so that the partners can benefit from the CEPEJ's works and expertise and the synergies aimed at improving the efficiency and quality of justice in Europe can be strengthened. |
1. The European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) held its 11th plenary meeting at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, on 2 and 3 July 2008. The meeting was chaired by Mr Fausto de SANTIS (Italy), President of the CEPEJ.
2. The agenda and the list of participants are set out in Appendices I and II respectively.
1. Opening of the meeting
3. The meeting was opened by Ms Margaret KILLERBY, Director of Legal cooperation. She thanked all the members and experts of the CEPEJ and its President in particular, as well as the chairs of the different working groups for the quality of the work completed and in progress.
1. Information from the President of the CEPEJ and the Secretariat
4. The President of the CEPEJ said that the Ministry of Justice of Italy had set up specialised courses for statisticians, focusing on the mechanisms of the CEPEJ in this field.
5. Mr Pim ALBERS told the CEPEJ that he had presented the Commission's activities at a UNIDEM seminar discussing length of proceedings (Trieste, Italy, 25-28 February 2008) as well as at a conference on the Rule of law (The Hague, Netherlands).
6. Mr Alan UZELAC (Croatia) said that the seminar organised by the Inter-university Centre of Dubrovnik (19-23 May 2008) on: "The Foundations of an accountable, accessible and efficient judiciary" had been attended by several members and experts of the CEPEJ and the publication “Civil justice between efficiency and quality: from Ius Commune to the CEPEJ" had been presented. A seminar on the quality of justice was scheduled for 23 to 30 May 2009 and CEPEJ participation was desired.
3. Recent developments in the judicial field in Council of Europe member States
7. In a round-table discussion several delegations (Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Serbia, United Kingdom) highlighted the main reforms and/or discussions under way in their respective countries in the judicial field. Details were available on the CEPEJ website[1]. CEPEJ members were asked to provide the Secretariat as soon as possible with written information and any useful references so that these could be posted on the website under “country profiles”.
- 2007 Activity Report of the CEPEJ
8. After hearing a report by Mr Dietger GEERAERT (Belgium) and discussing the draft prepared by its Bureau, the CEPEJ adopted its 2007 Activity Report (CEPEJ(2008)1) and decided to submit it to the Committee of Ministers for approval. Under the Rules of procedure of the CEPEJ, the report was to be presented by its President to the Ministers' Deputies in the autumn.
9. A number of studies underlined the importance of disseminating the report in the member States.
- Evaluation of judicial systems
Report on European judicial systems
10. The Chair of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL, Mr Jean-Paul JEAN (France), presented the process and method used by the Group to prepare the draft report on the evaluation of European judicial systems for the 2006 – 2008 evaluation cycle. This method had been validated by the plenary meeting of the CEPEJ, which had adopted the evaluation scheme and the accompanying explanatory note
11. He thanked the national correspondents for coordinating data collection, particularly those operating in federal States, whose task was complicated by the institutional organisation of their State. He stressed that the draft report presented to the CEPEJ was the fruit of a collective effort combining the input of the experts of the GT-QUAL, a scientific expert (Marta ZIMOLAG) and the Secretariat, including the special advisers, MM Pim ALBERS (Netherlands) and Guy MAGNIER (France). He also thanked another scientific expert, Mr Julien LHUILLIER (France).
12. The meeting with national correspondents on 5 May 2008 had been a key stage in the process, with an initial validation of data and the manner in which they had been used. The meeting had resulted in a number of corrections, prior to a second validation. Mr JEAN stressed the necessity of national correspondents referring to the Explanatory note accompanying the evaluation scheme to ensure greater homogeneity in the replies.
13. 45 member States out of 47 had replied to the questionnaire within the deadline set, meaning that the report covered 796 million Europeans. Only Liechtenstein and San Marino were missing from the study, although the replies from San Marino were now available. It was also to be noted that Albania had supplied very little in the way of data.
14. Mr JEAN reiterated that the CEPEJ had built up a database on the functioning of justice that was incomparable in Europe, if not the world. All the components of the study would be accessible on the Internet, including the individual replies of the 45 States taking part.
15. Clear progress had been made in relation to the previous evaluation cycle:
§ some parts of the report had been consolidated (funding for justice, legal aid, users of courts, evaluation techniques, quality systems, alternative dispute resolution measures, definition of civil cases and registration-linked cases and also criminal cases).
§ analyses were possible from the beginning of statistical series, thanks to stabilised data, allowing a more qualitative approach than in the previous report. Initial indications of major European trends and conclusions could be noted at the end of the different sections, and a concluding section analysing the trends had been drawn up.
§ two new ratios had been introduced to measure the performance of courts: clearance rate and disposition time.
§ qualitative data on reforms in progress had been dealt with in a specific section.
16. On the down-side, it was regrettable that there were still shortcomings in the calculation of length of proceedings by case-type. Work under way within the SATURN centre framework should pave the way for improvements in this important area. The representative of the CDCJ proposed that this shortcoming be pointed out to the Committee of Ministers as well as in the letter accompanying the report to be sent to Ministers of Justice.
17. Similarly, greater uniformity was still required in dealing with the concepts of minor offences and serious offences.
18. Mr JEAN gave a reminder of the precautions to be followed when using and interpreting information provided by the report. He stressed the role to be played by CEPEJ members in drawing the attention of readers in the member States to the remarks made on methodology when commenting on the report: one could only compare what was comparable. In particular, account was to be taken of differences in living standards, whether a country belonged to the euro-zone or not and improvements in living standards in certain countries.
19. The scientific expert, Mrs Marta ZIMOLAG, presented the methodology used to process the data. She said that, in comparison to the previous cycle, twice the volume of data had been processed.
20. She explained how she had checked and processed the data received via the electronic questionnaire. The 2004 data had served as a base for assessing the coherency and credibility of the 2006 data: she had systematically questioned the national correspondents whenever a significant discrepancy or inconsistency could be observed in the basic data. Generally speaking, the data from the previous evaluation exercise had not featured in the new report, except for the purpose of checking the credibility of new data. However, the experts had anticipated potential questions as to significant variations between the two reports in the main body of the commentary and explained certain differences.
21. An initial tour de table enabled the delegations to make general comments on the process. The CEPEJ warmly thanked the members of the GT-EVAL, its Chair, the scientific expert and the Secretariat for the quality of the work presented.
22. The electronic questionnaire was generally well received, notwithstanding a few technical difficulties which should be remedied in the future. The Swiss delegation gave special thanks to the Secretariat for making it possible to delegate the questionnaire at cantonal level and to Germany for the translation.
23. The delegation of France insisted that there be a clear mention in the report of the efforts made by the CEPEJ to ensure and enhance the credibility and coherency of the data presented (process of evaluation by peers and preparation of guidelines).
24. The delegation of Germany pointed out that it would be difficult to go on participating in a process requiring a report every two years. It was agreed that the question of the frequency of the report would be discussed at the next plenary meeting.
25. The CEPEJ also discussed the preparation of the document presenting the report, it being emphasised that this document would be consulted by more people than the full report and that the tables and graphs to be shown should therefore be carefully selected. It was agreed to pick out the relevant components during the detailed examination of the draft. The draft document, prepared by the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL, would be presented to the members of the CEPEJ before publication.
26. The draft report was then analysed section by section. Amendments were made, on the understanding that the Secretariat would handle the corrections to form and content.
27. The CEPEJ agreed that any final comments or requests for rectification could be sent to the Secretariat by 15 July. It was agreed that any rectifications of the data would be made by the Secretariat on the electronic questionnaire of the country concerned.
28. The Secretariat would then revise the text, which would be made accessible to the members of the CEPEJ at the end of July, so that it could then be forwarded to the Secretariat of the Committee of Ministers for 25 August. The report would be submitted to the Committee of Ministers at its meeting on 8 October. A press conference presenting the report would be held on the same day in Paris. All the participants in the meeting were reminded of their moral obligation to strictly observe the confidentiality of the report until the scheduled date of 8 October.
29. The CEPEJ adopted the Report (CEPEJ(2008)3), subject to:
§ comments mentioned in the previous paragraph;
§ additional comments intended to make the statistical data easier to read and understand, which it instructed the experts of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL to provide before the end of July 2008, under the authority of the Bureau of the CEPEJ.
30. The report would be published on the CEPEJ website, as would all the individual replies by member States to the evaluation scheme. Each delegation was invited to check that the national replies appearing in the electronic versions of the questionnaire had been duly updated and, where necessary, to notify the Secretariat by 15 September 2008 of any corrections it wished to make. It was agreed that any State not wishing these data to be published would be able to lodge the corresponding request up to 15 September 2008.
31. The member States wishing to update certain judicial data for 2007 appearing in the "Key judicial indicators" document (CEPEJ(2007)27) were invited to send their updates to the Secretariat by the end of 2008. The revised data would be posted on the CEPEJ website.
Peer evaluation process
32. Mr Jean-Paul JEAN presented the conclusions of the three experimental visits made in 2008 by members of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL to France, Bosnia & Herzegovina and Poland.
33. It was emphasised that this was a useful process, both for gaining better knowledge of data gathering and processing systems and for raising awareness among the bodies concerned of CEPEJ methodology. The Secretariat said that strong interest had been shown by the three volunteer States, which had organised very high-level study visits that testified to the political importance attached to the activities of the CEPEJ.
34. The experts said that a process of this kind would help to enhance the quality and homogeneity of the data gathered. The CEPEJ-GT-EVAL was invited to propose how to follow up this process at the 12th plenary meeting of the CEPEJ.
35. It was proposed that three other States volunteer to follow up the process in 2009, preferably one north European country, one English-speaking country and one east European country, to provide a good insight into specific characteristics by category of country. The delegation of Norway volunteered.
6. Judicial time management (SATURN Centre)
36. The Chair of the Steering group of the SATURN Centre, Mr Jacques BÜHLER (Switzerland), informed the CEPEJ of the work in progress, reminding the participants that 40% of applications to the Court in Strasbourg concerned unreasonable length of proceedings. A specific questionnaire to gain a fuller picture of delays in proceedings by type of case as well as the monitoring mechanisms put in place had been sent to all the CEPEJ network pilot courts. The information gathered was currently being processed by a scientific expert (Marco Fabri). The findings would serve as a basis for preparing guidelines on the subject.
7. Quality of justice (CEPEJ-GT-QUAL)
37. Mr John STACEY (United Kingdom) presented the draft Checklist for promoting the quality of justice prepared by the CEPEJ-GT-QUAL. Following discussion and a few amendments of a formal nature, the CEPEJ adopted the Checklist (CEPEJ(2008)2) and decided to forward it to the Committee of Ministers, the CCJE, the CCPE and the other competent committees of the Council of Europe so that they could make good use of it. The CEPEJ members were invited to circulate it widely to the competent national institutions and organisations.
38. The representative of the CCJE informed the CEPEJ of the work in progress within the Consultative Council, geared to adopting an opinion on the quality of judicial decisions, which would usefully complement the activities of the CEPEJ. The CEPEJ and the European Court of Human Rights would be invited to state their views on the draft opinion. The CEPEJ welcomed this new example of good cooperation with other Council of Europe committees.
39. The CEPEJ was told that, in addition to preparing the Checklist, the CEPEJ-GT-QUAL was working in the following areas:
§ a report comprising a structured synthesis of quality systems in a sample of member States and showing the lines of approach chosen and the main findings was being prepared by a team of European researchers led by Mr Philip LANGBROEK (Netherlands); an interim report would be presented at the next plenary meeting;
§ a report on the contractualisation of judicial process was being prepared with scientific input from Mr Julien LHUILLIER (France);
§ a handbook for developing court user satisfaction surveys was to be drawn up during 2009, on the basis of preparatory work by Mr Daimar LIIV (Estonia).
8. CEPEJ Network of Pilot Courts
40. The President of the CEPEJ informed the Committee that the 3rd meeting of the Network of Pilot Courts would be held at the Court of Appeal of Catania (Italy) on 24 October 2008, within the framework of European Day of Justice.
41. In keeping with the Bureau's proposal, the CEPEJ agreed that only those courts having actively participated in the activities of the CEPEJ in the past year would be invited to the meeting;
42. On a proposal from the President, the CEPEJ agreed to organise, within the Network's activities, a specific working group on questions concerning appeal courts (second instance). The group would meet in Catania on 25 October.
43. The CEPEJ members in respect of Albania and Montenegro said that they would shortly nominate a pilot court to represent their country in the Network.
44. On the basis of the report presented by Mrs Elsa GARCIA MALTRAS de BLAS (Spain), the members of the CEPEJ discussed how to involve the members of the network more in the Committee's activities. In 2008, the main involvement of the courts had related to replies to the questionnaire on delays in judicial proceedings prepared by the SATURN Centre steering group (a fairly good response) and comments on the Checklist for promoting quality (low level of response). The Secretariat found it regrettable that few courts had replied concerning the use of the Checklist on judicial time management.
45. The CEPEJ stressed that the role of its members was vital in establishing regular exchanges of information between courts and the CEPEJ and urging courts to reply to requests for information from the CEPEJ and participate in initiatives such as European Day of Justice and the Crystal Scales.
9. Targeted cooperation with Member states
46. The CEPEJ member in respect of Bulgaria expressed his country's wish to cooperate with the CEPEJ on criteria for categorising courts and on criteria for the individual assessment of judges. A meeting to take stock of the situation could be held in Bulgaria in autumn 2008.
47. The CEPEJ members in respect of Italy and France said that a comparison of the data of the appeal courts of Rome and Paris would be organised under the auspices of the CEPEJ, with a view to comparing the functioning of the two courts.
48. The CEPEJ invited the other member States wishing to benefit from a targeted cooperation activity to send in their proposals to the Secretariat so that they could be considered by the Bureau within the limit of the budget funds available.
11. Relations between the CEPEJ and the other bodies of the Council of Europe
49. The representative of the CCJE, Mr Gerhard REISSNER, confirmed the desire of the CCJE to coordinate its activities with those of the CEPEJ in connection with the quality of judicial decisions (see para. 38 above). He also stressed the importance of the CEPEJ evaluation report for judges.
50. The Secretary of the CCPE informed the CEPEJ of the adoption by the CCPE of an opinion on "Ways to improve international cooperation in the criminal justice field". Two other opinions were being prepared on "alternatives to prosecution" and "the role of prosecutors outside the criminal law field". The CCPE would be working in conjunction with the CCJE in 2009 on "relations between judges and prosecutors". The CEPEJ report evaluating judicial systems could be a useful working tool for those activities.
51. The representative of the CDCJ, Mr Eberhard DESCH, said that the project to revise Recommendation Rec (94)12, proposed to the CDCJ by the CEPEJ in connection with its Action plan for follow-up to opinions of the CCJE (CEPEJ(2005)11) and prepared by the CJ-S-JUS (Mr Jean-Paul SUDRE represented the CEPEJ in this group) had not been accepted in its present state by the CDCJ. An enlarged working group would be instructed to continue this work. The CEPEJ would be involved.
52. Mr DESCH also informed the Committee that, for the follow-up of the resolutions adopted by the 28th Conference of Ministers of Justice (Lanzarote, October 2007), the CDCJ had been instructed to prepare guidelines for child-friendly justice, in conjunction with other committees concerned. The CEPEJ would be involved in this activity.
12. Cooperation with the European Union
53. On behalf of the outgoing and current Presidencies of the European Union, the CEPEJ members in respect of Slovenia, Mr Marko SÖRLI, and France, Mr Jean-Paul SUDRE, took stock of and looked ahead to the prospects for the judicial field within the European Union (see appendix IV).
54. Mr Fausto de SANTIS reported on the inaugural meeting of the European Union's Justice Forum organised in Brussels on 30 May 2008, at which he had represented the CEPEJ together with its Secretary. The CEPEJ was regarded as a key partner for the Forum in the European Commission's Communication of 4 February 2008. The Forum was intended as a means of broad exchange on the functioning of justice with the main players (member state governments, professional associations, NGOs etc). Several sub-groups were to be set up, in which the CEPEJ would be invited to take part. The European Commission representative confirmed the Commission's desire for the Forum to benefit from the work of the CEPEJ. This work was already used inter alia for a study of the costs of justice. The CEPEJ confirmed that it was fully disposed to cooperate within this framework.
55. The Secretariat said that 38 applications, from 15 European States, had been received for the 3rd Crystal Scales competition, which was a record and testified to the keen interest generated by the event. The Jury would meet on 2 October in Brussels to choose a shortlist of 4 initiatives. The Prize would be awarded in Catania on 24 October.
56. The CEPEJ was informed of the discussion taking place within the European Commission with a view to the Crystal Scales being awarded each year, alternating between civil law and criminal law initiatives from year to year. The CEPEJ approved of this development in principle, as its prime interest was the functioning of justice in general.
57. The Secretariat stressed the need to give greater impact to European Day of Justice, by running more events in more member States. It invited the members of the CEPEJ to notify it swiftly of all the initiatives organised in their respective countries in this connection.
13. Observers on the CEPEJ
58. The CEPEJ was informed of the request for observer status lodged by the European Criminal Bar Association (ECBA). The CEPEJ took note of this request and instructed its Bureau to examine it and make a corresponding recommendation for the 12th plenary meeting.
59. In discussion with the observers, it was proposed that the CEPEJ work on the question of the judicial map, particularly as part of in-depth analysis of the conclusions of the report on "European judicial systems – Edition 2008".
60. The CEPEJ also took note of the Green paper on Rechtspfleger/greffiers being prepared within the EUR, on the basis of CEPEJ data. This work could prove useful for any updating of Recommendation Rec(86)12 concerning measures to prevent and reduce the excessive workload in the courts.
Appendix I
AGENDA
1. Opening of the meeting
2. Adoption of the agenda
3. Information by the President of the CEPEJ and the Secretariat
4. Recent developments in the judicial field in the Council of Europe Member states
5. 2007 Activity Report of the CEPEJ: discussion in view of its adoption
Rapporteur: Dietger GEERAERT (Belgium)
6. Evaluation of judicial systems (Work carried out by the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL)
Rapporteur: Mr Jean-Paul JEAN, Chair of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL
i. Report on European judicial systems – Edition 2008
§ Presentation by Ms Marta ZIMOLAG, Scientific expert
§ Examination of the Report with a view to its adoption
§ Communication strategy
ii. Implementation of the pilot peer evaluation co-operation process
§ Presentation of the conclusions of the three pilot visits and discussion
iii. Intermediary process through the list of key data
7. Judicial time management(SATURN Centre)
Rapporteur: Mr Jacques BÜHLER, Chair of the Steering group
8. Quality of justice (Work carried out by the CEPEJ-GT-QUAL)
Rapporteur: Mr John STACEY (United Kingdom)
i. Examination with a view of its adoption of the Checklist for the quality of the judiciary
and the courts
ii. (State of the work carried out by the CEPEJ-GT-QUAL
9. CEPEJ Network of Pilot Courts
i. Third meeting of the Network, Catania (Italy), 24 October 2008
ii. Implementation of a specific network concerning appeal courts (Initiative of Italy)
Rapporteur: Mr Fausto de SANTIS (Italy)
iii. How to improve the involvement of the Network members?
Rapporteur: Ms Elsa GARCIA MALTRAS de BLAS (Spain)
10. Targeted co-operation of the CEPEJ with Member states
11. Relations between the CEPEJ and the other bodies of the Council of Europe
§ Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE)
§ Consultative Council of European Prosecutors (CCPE)
§ European Committee on Legal Cooperation (CDCJ)
§ Steering Committee on Human Rights (CDDH)
§ Lisbon Network
12. Co-operation with the European Union
i. Last developments within the European Union in the judicial field
Rapporteurs: Mr Marko ŠORLI (Slovenia) and Mr Jean-Paul SUDRE (France) on behalf of the outgoing and incoming presidencies of the European Union
ii. Involvement of the CEPEJ in the Justice Forum of the European Commission
Rapporteur: Mr Fausto de SANTIS (Italy)
iii. Crystal Scales of Justice and European Day of Justice
13. Observers to the CEPEJ
14. Any other business
Appendix II
List of participants / Liste des participants
CEPEJ MEMBERS / MEMBRES DE LA CEPEJ
ALBANIA/ALBANIE
Rezana BALLA, Head of Department of Judicial Organization, 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, Public Prosecutor, Directorate for Central Administraiton and Coordination, Dept PR 1, Federal Ministry of Justice, VIENNA
AZERBAIJAN/AZERBAÏDJAN
Ramin GURBANOV, Senior Adviser, Department of Organisation and Analysis, Ministry of Justice, BAKU
BELGIUM/BELGIQUE
Dietger GEERAERT, Attaché Service Juridique, Direction Générale de l'Organisation Judiciaire, SPF Justice, BRUXELLES
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA/BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE
Ljiljana FILIPOVIĆ, Judge, Supreme Court, Vrhovni sud FbiH, SARAJEVO, Apologised / Excusée
Mersudin PRUŽAN, Deputy Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Office of the Disciplinary Prosecutor, High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council of BiH, SARAJEVO
Adis HODZIC, Head of the Budget and Statistics Department, Secretariat High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council of BiH, SARAJEVO
BULGARIA/BULGARIE
Galina TONEVA-DACHEVA, Judge, Vice-President of the Sofia Appellate Court, SOFIA
CROATIA/CROATIE
Alan UZELAC, Ph.D. Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb, ZAGREB
Kristian TURKALJ, Director, Directorate for International Legal Assistance, Cooperation and Human Rights, Ministry of Justice, and member of The Negotiating Team for the Accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union, responsible for chapters 23 and 24
CYPRUS/CHYPRE
Takis ELIADES, Member of the Supreme Court, LIMASSOL
CZECH REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
Ivana BORZOVÁ, Head of the Department of Civil Supervision, Ministry of Justice, PRAGUE
DENMARK/DANEMARK
Klaus Rugaard, Chief Adviser, Documentation and analyses, Danish Court Administration, COPENHAGEN
ESTONIA/ESTONIE
Kadri ROOS, Advisor, Judicial Administration Policy Department, Ministry of Justice, TALLINN
FINLAND/FINLANDE
Kari Samuli KIESILĀINEN, Head of Department, Directorate General, Ministry of Justice, HELSINKI
FRANCE
Jean-Paul SUDRE, Avocat Général près la Cour d’Appel de Paris, Palais de Justice, PARIS
GEORGIA/GÉORGIE
Irakli ADEISHVILI, Chair of Civil Chamber of Tbilisi District Court, TBILISI
GERMANY/ALLEMAGNE
Matthias HEGER, Chef du Service de Procédure civile internationale, Ministère fédéral de la justice, BERLIN
GREECE/GRÈCE
Michael VRONTAKIS, Vice-Président du Conseil d’Etat, ATHENES
HUNGARY/HONGRIE
Gabor SZEPLAKI-NAGY, Conseiller Référendaire à la Cour Suprême de Hongrie, Directeur de Cabinet de la Présidence, BUDAPEST
ICELAND/ISLANDE
Arnfriđur EINARSDŎTTIR, Legal Expert, Ministry of Justice and Ecclesiastical Affairs, REYKJAVIK
IRELAND/IRLANDE
David FENNELL, Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, DUBLIN, Apologised / Excusé
Noel RUBOTHAM, Director of Reform and Development, Courts Service, DUBLIN 7
ITALY/ITALIE
Fausto DE SANTIS, Directeur Général au sein du Bureau de l’organisation judiciaire, Ministère de la Justice, ROME (Chair of the CEPEJ / Président de la CEPEJ)
LATVIA/LETTONIE
Aija BRANTA, Judge of the Constitutional Court, LV-RIGA
Agnija KARLSONE, Head of Public Relations Division, Court Administration, Court Administration, RIGA
LITHUANIA/LITUANIE
Ernesta GRUSECKAITE, Senior specialist, National Court Administration, International Relations Division, VILNIUS
LUXEMBOURG
Yves HUBERTY, Attaché de Gouvernement, Ministère de la justice, LUXEMBOURG-KIRCHBERG
MALTA/MALTE
Francesco DEPASQUALE, Ministry representative, Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs, VALLETTA
MOLDOVA
Diana SCOBIOALA, Head of Directorate General International Relations and European Integration of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Moldova, CHISINAU
MONACO
Jean Antoine CURRAU, Assistant référendaire près de la Cour d’Appel, Direction des Services judiciaires, Palais de Justice, MONACO
MONTENEGRO/MONTÉNÉGRO
Lidija MASANOVIC, councillor, Ministry of Justice, PODGORICA
NETHERLANDS/PAYS‑BAS
Frans van der DOELEN, Programme Manager of the Department of the Justice System, Ministry of Justice, THE HAGUE
NORWAY/NORVÈGE
Audun BERG, Senior adviser, The National Courts Administration, TRONDHEIM
Jon T. JOHNSEN, Professor in Law, Faculty of law, University of Oslo, OSLO
POLAND/POLOGNE
Tadeusz ERECINSKI, Professor of Law, President of the Supreme Court of Poland (Civil Chamber), WARSAW
PORTUGAL
João ARSENIO DE OLIVEIRA, Conseiller juridique, Bureau de la Politique législative et du Plan, Ministère de la Justice, LISBONNE
ROMANIA/ROUMANIE
Violeta-Eugenia BELEGANTE, Conseiller juridique, Chef du service du droit privé, Direction de l’élaboration de actes normatifs, des études et de la documentation, Ministère de la Justice, BUCAREST
THE RUSSISAN FEDERATION/FÉDÉRATION DE RUSSIE
Yana tsimbalova, Counselor at the Dept. of the apparatus at the Representatiion of the Russian Federation at the ECHR, Ministry of Justice, MOSCOW
Konstantin KOSORUKOV, Assistant on Legal Affairs, Permanent Representation of the Russian Federation, STRASBOURG, FRANCE
SERBIA/SERBIE
Milica VLASIC KOTUROVIC, Ministry of Justice, Section for Judiciary, Division for human resources, BELGRADE
SLOVAK REPUBLIC/RÉPUBLIQUE SLOVAQUE
Ladislav DUDITS, Judge, Kosice Regional Court, in charge as the Director General of the Civil Law Division in the Ministry of Justice, KOSICE; Apologised / Excusé
SLOVENIA/SLOVÉNIE
Marko SORLI, Vice President of the Supreme Court, LJUBLJANA
SPAIN/ESPAGNE
Elsa García-Maltrás de blas, Fiscal Assesor, Directorate of International Judicial Co-operation, Ministry of Justice, MADRID
SWEDEN/SUÈDE
Anne RAPP, Ministry of justice, STOCKHOLM
SWITZERLAND/SUISSE
Jacques BÜHLER, Secrétaire Général suppléant, Tribunal fédéral suisse, LAUSANNE
"THE FORMER YOUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA" / "L'EX-RÉPUBLIQUE YOUGOSLAVE DE MACÉDOINE"
Mimoza KIKOVSA, Deputy Head of the Department of international affairs, Ministry of Justice, SKOPJE
TURKEY/TURQUIE
Harun MERT, Judge, Ministry of Justice, General Directorate of International Law and Foreign Relations, ANKARA
UNITED KINGDOM/ROYAUME‑UNI
John STACEY, Head of Civil & Family Rules and Jurisdiction Branch, LONDON (Vice-Chair of the CEPEJ / Vice-Président de la CEPEJ)
Debra ANTHONY, European and International Division, Ministry of Justice, LONDON
***
OBSERVER STATES / ÉTATS OBSERVATEURS
HOLY SEE/SAINT-SIÈGE : Apologised / Excusé
JAPAN/JAPON
Akira TAKANO, Consul (Attorney), Consulate-General of Japan, STRASBOURG, FRANCE
***
OBSERVERS / OBSERVATEURS
COUNCIL OF THE BARS AND LAW SOCIETIES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION / CONSEIL DES BARREAUX EUROPÉE (CCBE)
Birgitt BEGER, Senior Legal Advisor, BRUXELLES, BELGIQUE
Jana WURSTOVA, Lawyer, International Department, Czech Bar Association, Prague CZECH REPUBLIC
EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION OF JUDGES / Association européenne des MAGISTRATS (EAJ)
Djuro SESSA, President of the Association of the Croatian Judges, ZAGREB, CROATIA
EUROPEAN UNION OF RECHTSPFLEGER AND COURT CLERKS / UNION EUROPÉENNE DES GREFFIERS DE JUSTICE (EUR)
Jean-Jacques KUSTER, Greffier en chef, tribunal d'instance, représentant de l'EUR auprès du Conseil de l'Europe, STRASBOURG CEDEX, FRANCE
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF BAILIFFS / UNION INTERNATIONALE DES HUISSIERS DE JUSTICE ET OFFICIERS JUDICIAIRES (UIHJ)
Jacques ISNARD, Président de l’UIHJ, PARIS, FRANCE
Leo NETTEN, 1er Vice Président de l’UIHJ, PARIS, FRANCE
EUROPEAN FEDERATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES / FÉDÉRATION EUROPÉENNE DES JUGES ADMINISTRATIFS
Pierre VINCENT, Président de la Fédération européenne des Juges administratifs, Cour admininstrative d’appel de Nancy, NANCY, FRANCE
Bernard EVEN, Vice-Président du Tribunal Administratif, STRASBOURG, FRANCE
MAGISTRATS EUROPÉENS POUR LES DÉMOCRATIES ET LES LIBERTÉS (MEDEL)
Eric ALT, Vice-Président de MEDEL, Magistrat, Conseiller référendaire, Cour de Cassation, PARIS, France
european judicial training network / RÉseau EuropÉen de Formation Judiciaire (REFJ)
Aude MAGEN, BRUXELLES
WORLDBANK / BANQUE MONDIALE : Apologised / Excusée
***
EUROPEAN UNION / UNION EUROPÉENNE
Council of Euroepan Union / Conseil de l’Union europeenne : Apologised / Excusé
European Commision / Commission européenne
Jérôme CARRIAT, Commission DG JLS C/1, Justice civile, BRUXELLES
***
COUNCIL OF EUROPE / CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS / COUR EUROPENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME
Paola TONARELLI-LACORE, Registry of the European Court of Human Rights/Greffe de la Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme
PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE / ASSEMBLÉE PARLEMENTAIRE DU CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE
Michel HUNAULT, Member of the French delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights / Membre de la délégation française à Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe, Commission des questions juridiques et des Droits de l’Homme, Apologised/ Excusé
EUROPEAN COMMITTEE ON LEGAL CO-OPERATION / COMITE EUROPÉEN DE COOPÉRATION JURIDIQUE (CDCJ)
Eberhard DESCH, Head of Division of International Law, Federal Ministry of Justice, BERLIN, GERMANY
CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN JUGES / CONSEIL CONSULTATIF DE JUGES EUROPÉENS (CCJE)
Gerhard REISSNER, Vice-President of the Austrian Association of Judges, President of the District Court of Floridsdorf, VIENNA, AUSTRIA
Consultative Council of the European Prosecutors / CONSEIL CONSULTATIF DE PROCUREURS EUROPÉENS (CCPE)
Harald RANGE, Generalstaatsanwalt, Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Celle, CELLE, GERMANY, Apologised / Excusé
STEERING COMMITTEE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS / COMITE DIRECTEUR POUR LES DROITS DE L’HOMME (CDDH)
Vitaliano ESPOSITO, Premier Avocat Général, Cour de Cassation, Palais de justice, ROME, Italie, Apologised / Excusé
***
CHAIRs of Working GROUPs OF THE cePEJ /
PRESIDENTs De GROUPEs DE TRAVAIL DE LA CEPEJ
Jean-Paul JEAN, Avocat général Cour près la Cour d’Appel de Paris, Professeur associé à l’Université de Poitiers, Parquet Général, Palais de Justice, PARIS, FRANCE, Chair of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL / Président du CEPEJ-GT-EVAL
François PAYCHÈRE, Juge, Président du Tribunal administratif et membre du Conseil supérieur de la magistrature de la République et canton de Genève, GENEVE, SUISSE, Chair of the CEPEJ-GT-QUAL / Président du CEPEJ-GT-QUAL : Apologised / Excusé
***
Scientific ExpertS / ExpertS scientifiqueS
Julien LHUILLIER, ATER, Faculté de droit de Nancy, NANCY, France
Marta ZIMOLAG, Council of Europe / Conseil de l’Europe, STRASBOURG, FRANCE
Daria SOLENIK, Chercheur à la Faculté de Droit de Nancy-Université, NANCY, FRANCE
***
SECRETARIAT
Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs, Justice Division /
Direction Générale des droits de l’Homme et des affaires juridiques, Divison de la Justice
Fax: +33 3 88 41 37 43
e-mail: [email protected]
Stéphane LEYENBERGER, Secretary of the CEPEJ / Secrétaire de la CEPEJ
Muriel DECOT, Co-Secretary of the CEPEJ / Co-secrétaire de la CEPEJ
Pim ALBERS, Special Advisor to the Secretariat of the CEPEJ/ Conseiller spécial auprès du Secrétariat de la CEPEJ
Guy MAGNIER, Special Advisor to the Secretarit of the CEPEJ / Conseiller spécial auprès du Secrétariat de la CEPEJ
Jean-Pierre GEILLER, Documentation
Sandrine MAROLLEAU, Communication
Elisabeth HEURTEBISE, Assistant / Assitante
James PETERS, Trainee / Stagiaire
Forian RAKIPI, Trainee / Stagiaire
Interpreters / Interprètes
Bettina LUDEWIG
Didier JUNGLING
Josette YOESLE