Strasbourg, 15 July 2007
CEPEJ(2007)18
European commission for the efficiency of justice (CEPEJ)
9th plenary meeting - Strasbourg, 13 - 14 June 2007 - meeting report
|
MAIN DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE CEPEJ The CEPEJ: § adopted its 2006 Activity Report (CEPEJ(2007)7) and decided to forward it to the Committee of Ministers for being approved; § welcomed the invitation by the "Monitoring Committee" of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to have an exchange of views with the President of the CEPEJ on the process for evaluating judicial systems and recalled its readiness to cooperate with the Assembly to improve the functioning of justice in the member states; § instructed the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL to supervise the finalisation of the in-depth studies based on the 2006 Report, so that they can be adopted at the 10th plenary meeting, and entrusted its Bureau to take the necessary measures so that the specific studies on execution of court decisions can be submitted to the Committee of Ministers in due time to be taken into account within the framework of its monitoring process;
§ adopted the revised Scheme for evaluating judicial systems (CEPEJ(2007)11), entrusted the Secretariat to finalise the Explanatory Note accordingly and decided to submit the Scheme to the Committee of Ministers for approval; welcomed the development of the electronic version of the Scheme which should facilitate data collection and processing and instructed the Secretariat to organise the process in such manner that the national correspondents can use the electronic Scheme as soon as possible; § decided that the answers to the Evaluation Scheme should be submitted to the Secretariat before 31 December 2007, while taking into account the specificities of federal states; invited its members to submit to the Secretariat before 1 September 2007 the names and details (including e-mail address) of the national correspondents entrusted with the collection of national data; § instructed the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL to prepare the draft Report "European judicial systems – Edition 2008", with the support of a scientific expert and the Secretariat, so that it can be adopted at its 11th plenary meeting; agreed that the scientific expert could be appointed following a call for candidature, to be widespread by the CEPEJ members and through the CEPEJ web site; § instructed the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL to pursue the reflection for working out: - a list of key data which could be regularly updated, taking into account the positions of its members stressed at this plenary session; - Guidelines on judicial statistics, which would be an innovative working modality to strengthen synergies between its works and the practices of the member states; - a cooperation mechanism enabling to strengthen the credibility of judicial data collected in the member states; entrusted its Bureau, if appropriate, to implement such a mechanism on an experimental basis, with volunteer member states;
§ reiterated its wish that this process for evaluating European judicial systems can be duly taken into account within the European Union and recalled that it was available to cooperate with the relevant instances of the European Union in this context; § decided to postpone the adoption of the Guidelines for a better implementation of the existing recommendations of the Council of Europe concerning mediation in order to enable the delegations to complete their comments on the draft prepared by the CEPEJ-GT-MED, to be submitted to the Secretariat before 15 September 2007, and entrusted its Bureau to propose an appropriate procedure for adopting these Guidelines in the light of these comments; agreed to publish, as a working document, the Analysis on assessment of the impact of Recommendations concerning mediation (CEPEJ (2007)12);
§ instructed the Groupe de pilotage of the SATURN Centre to pursue the implementation of its Working Plan this Plan, relying in particular on the Network of Pilot Courts; § instructed the CEPEJ-GT-QUAL to pursue its work so as to identify firstly those elements which are part of the quality of justice; however it underlined the need for the CEPEJ to design concrete measures as regards the quality of justice; § invited its members to develop regular contacts with the pilot courts in their countries; § invited the member states which would like to benefit from the cooperation of the CEPEJ to forward their proposals to the Secretariat, so that they can be considered by the Bureau, subject to budgetary availabilities; § agreed to pursue an appropriate cooperation with the CCJE, the CCPE and the CDCJ to ensure the coherence between their respective activities and facilitate the synergies, where appropriate; § welcomed the initiative of Germany to organise on 8 November 2007 the main event of the European Day of Justice in Aachen, in cooperation with the Belgian and Dutch authorities, and invited its members to forward to the Secretariat all the information on the celebration of the 5th European Day of Justice in October 2007; § invited its members to encourage candidatures from judicial institutions in their countries to participate in the "Crystal Scales of Justice" in 2008; § invited its members to make use of the discussion Forum on the CEPEJ Web site and agreed to develop a single forum for its members, pilot courts and observers; § agreed to celebrate, at its 10th plenary meeting, the 5th anniversary of the CEPEJ and entrusted the Bureau to organise this event, taking into account suggestions to be forwarded by the CEPEJ members to the Secretariat before 15 September 2007; § agreed to support the research carried out by the University of Aix-Marseille III (France) on "Improvements and difficulties for a common judicial culture in the European justice area" and entrusted its Bureau to organise this support. |
1. The European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) held its 9th plenary meeting in Strasbourg on 13 - 14 June 2007. 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 Maud de BOER BUQUICCHIO, Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe. Her speech appears in Appendix III to this Report. On behalf of the CEPEJ, President de SANTIS thanked Ms de BOER-BUQUICCHIO for her support to the work of the Commission.
4. The Director of Co-operation, Roberto LAMPONI, informed the CEPEJ of a recent restructuring operation within the Council of Europe Secretariat, which had led to the merger of the Directorate General of Legal Affairs and the Directorate General of Human Rights in a new Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs (DG-HL), headed by Mr Philippe BOILLAT. The Secretariat of the CEPEJ remained within the Division of the Judiciary, which was part of the Directorate of Cooperation.
2. Information from the President, members of the CEPEJ and the secretariat
5. Mr de SANTIS said the Monitoring Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe had invited him to participate in an exchange of views (Paris, 7 June 2007) on the judicial systems evaluation process. The parliamentarians had expressed great satisfaction with the quality of the work and its usefulness for comparing the functioning of member states' systems of justice.
The Chair of the Monitoring Committee, Mr LINTNER (Germany), had drawn attention to the need for the Assembly to keep abreast of the CEPEJ's work. It had been proposed that the CEPEJ prepare country information sheets on the basis of the evaluation report. A number of Assembly members had pointed out that the timelag in publishing the report (2004 data brought out in 2006) meant that no mention was made of the rapid developments in the transition countries. This was an argument in favour of updating certain key data on an annual basis. In answer to a number of questions, the President and the Secretary of the CEPEJ had described the Commission's other areas of work and the practical instruments produced in this context. A number of Assembly members had shown a special interest in the judicial time management checklist and the report on judicial timeframes in ECHR case-law.
Mr de SANTIS pointed out that this invitation in itself constituted a significant step forward in the relations which the CEPEJ wished to develop with the Assembly and also a recognition of the Commission's work and its judicial systems evaluation methodology.
He had also stressed that the CEPEJ was able to provide targeted expert assistance to states which so requested in connection with judicial reforms and indicated that the Commission was ready to co-operate with the Assembly should the latter request an opinion from it on the functioning of justice in general or a member state's judicial system in particular.
6. Mr de SANTIS had also represented the CEPEJ and presented its work on the following occasions:
§ the seminar to present the report "European judicial systems - 2006 edition" held at the Court of Cassation in Paris on 13 December 2006;
§ a conference entitled "People, means and good practices for a better judicial service" held in Padua on 22 and 23 February 2007;
§ a seminar on information and communication technologies held in Rome on 23 March 2007.
7. The Vice-President of the CEPEJ, Mr John STACEY, announced that he had participated in the training course "Public and private justice - dispute resolution in modern societies" organised by Mr Alan UZELAC under the auspices of the Inter-University Centre, Dubrovnik (28 May – 1 June 2007), to which other CEPEJ members and experts had made active contributions. The CEPEJ's work had been discussed in detail during several of the workshops.
8. The Secretariat also informed members of a number of other events at which the work of the CEPEJ had been presented:
§ a conference on traditional administrative and legal rules on consumer litigation held by Luxembourg's Ministry of Economy and Foreign Trade (19 December 2006);
§ a seminar entitled "Measuring Law" organised by the Programme "Attractivité Economique du Droit" and the Economics Department of Paris 10 Nanterre University at the Conseil d'Etat (15 - 16 December 2006);
§ the formal opening session of the legal year at the Dijon Court of Appeal (9 January 2007);
§ a seminar on evaluating justice systems organised by the Netherlands Ministry of Justice in The Hague (8 February 2007);
§ a seminar entitled "Justice benchmark monitoring", organised by the American Bar Association (ABA) and the Arab Council for Judicial and Legal Studies in Amman (25 - 26 February 2007);
§ four seminars on management and administration of justice organised by the European Institute of Public Administration - European Centre for the Regions in the context of the EURO-MED programme funded by the European Commission (MEDA Programme) for the countries of the Mediterranean basin, held in Athens (12 – 15 February 2007), Prague (12 – 15 March 2007), Istanbul (16 – 19 April 2007) and Amman (14 – 16 May 2007);
§ a colloquy on the quality of judicial decisions held in Poitiers (8 – 9 March 2007);
§ a workshop on quality and efficiency in the organisation of judicial systems in Council of Europe member states - the contribution of Rechtspfleger/court clerks, held by the EUR in Bucharest (14 – 16 March 2007);
§ a seminar on "Regulating career development and professional accountability of judges" held by UNODC, OSCE-ODIHR and the State Duma and the Supreme Court of Arbitration of the Russian Federation in Moscow (24 - 25 May 2007).
9. The large number of events in which the CEPEJ was invited to participate showed the European and international judicial communities' great interest in its work. Information on events at which the CEPEJ was represented or talked about was published on the Commission's web-site.[1]
3. Recent developments in the judicial field in Council of Europe member states
10. During a round-table discussion a number of delegations (Austria, Estonia, Georgia, Germany, Italy, Moldova, the Netherlands, Romania, Spain and the United Kingdom) mentioned main judicial reforms or debates currently under way in their countries. This information can be found on the CEPEJ web-site.[2] Members were invited to inform the Secretariat in writing as soon as possible of any information for inclusion in the "country profiles" area, citing any relevant references. Those members who had not already done so were also reminded that they should transmit a judicial system organisation chart to the secretariat, for publication in the same section of the web-site.
4. 2006 activity report of the CEPEJ
11. Following a presentation of the report by Ms Gökcen TURKER (Turkey), and after discussing the draft text drawn up by its Bureau, the CEPEJ adopted its 2006 activity report (CEPEJ(2007)7) and decided to submit it to the Committee of Ministers for approval. In accordance with the CEPEJ's rules of procedure, the report would be presented by the President at the 1005th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies on 26 September 2007.
5. Process for evaluating European judicial systems
Impact of the 2006 report in the member states
12. The President said that, in addition to the interest shown by the Parliamentary Assembly (see paragraph 5 above), the report had been perused, inter alia, by the Italian National Commission for the Efficiency of Justice, set up by Justice Minister Clemente MASTELLA, of which he was a member. This commission's findings should be made public in the autumn.
13. The member in respect of Austria said his country's Ministry of Justice frequently referred to the report in connection with its work, not least during budgetary discussions.
14. The member in respect of Germany also stated that the report was regularly consulted by the Ministry of Justice and the Parliament.
15. The member in respect of Estonia informed the Commission that, when he had addressed Parliament, the President of the Supreme Court had referred to this report and underlined the need to pursue the judicial reform process, taking into account the work of the CEPEJ and the good practices thereby identified.
16. The member in respect of France said the CEPEJ's work was of direct relevance to the debate on judicial reform taking place in his country. He noted the trend to develop an approach increasingly based on drawing comparisons, making it possible to obtain valuable information on other systems, for use, for example, in budgetary discussions. He added that the growing importance attached to this approach called for more and more credible tools of comparison.
17. The representative of the Consultative Council of European Prosecutors (CCPE) referred to the written report prepared by that body's Bureau on the work of the CEPEJ.[3] It was desirable that the role of the public prosecution service should be analysed in greater depth in future evaluation exercises.
18. The Secretariat pointed out that, apart from the various events at which the report had been directly presented and discussed by members of the CEPEJ, experts or the secretariat (see section 2 above), it had been commented on in other fora, in particular a number of formal opening sessions of French courts (see "Events which mention the CEPEJ" on the CEPEJ web-site).
19. The CEPEJ noted with satisfaction that its report "European judicial systems - 2006 edition" was regularly used as a source of information and food for thought in connection with justice policies in a number of member states.
Thematic studies based on the 2006 report
20. Ms Elsa GARCIA MALTRAS de BLAS (Spain) presented the studies under way to conduct an in-depth analysis of the information set out in the report on the following themes: access to justice, evaluation and monitoring of justice systems, administration and management of justice, use of information technology in the courts, training of judges and prosecutors and execution of judicial decisions. These studies were being performed by teams of researchers (generally coming from several European countries) selected by the GT-EVAL, under the authority of the CEPEJ Bureau. They were supervised by one or more experts from the working group. These studies should be available for discussion by the GT-EVAL in September 2007 and might be submitted to the CEPEJ for adoption at its 10th plenary meeting, with a view to publication in the "CEPEJ Studies" series.
21. To give an idea of the possible substance of these studies, aimed at policy-makers and justice professionals in the member states, Mr Julien LHUILLIER (France), co-ordinator of the research teams working in the fields of access to justice and execution of judicial decisions, presented the work done so far by these teams. Members of the CEPEJ put a number of suggestions to him. Mr LHUILLIER confirmed that the studies would be available by mid-September 2007.
22. It was pointed out that, in connection with its procedure for monitoring the honouring of member states' commitments regarding execution of decisions by the national courts, the Committee of Ministers had decided to rely in particular on the CEPEJ's report and the specific study under preparation. The CEPEJ accordingly asked its Bureau to take the necessary steps to transmit the specific study on execution of judicial decisions to the Committee of Ministers in time to be taken into account in the monitoring process.
2006 – 2008 evaluation round
23. The Secretariat presented the adapted version of the Scheme for evaluating judicial systems prepared by the GT-EVAL in the light of experience gained during the previous evaluation exercise and the comments received from the experts and the national correspondents. The CEPEJ concurred with the GT-EVAL's proposal that the Scheme should be amended as little as possible, so as to stabilise it, thereby ensuring that the data available were consistent from one exercise to the next and allowing the necessary comparisons to be drawn.
24. The CEPEJ discussed and amended the draft questionnaire point by point, making particular reference to the report submitted to it by the CCPE (CCPE-Bu(2007)11), on the strength of which it either added certain questions regarding the role and training of prosecutors or decided to mention them in the explanatory note.
25. As proposed by the Chair of the GT-EVAL, the CEPEJ agreed to make express reference in the explanatory note to cases of corruption involving judges, prosecutors or court staff, so as to encourage states to include comments on problems brought to light, inter alia, in reports issued by the GRECO or Transparency International.
26. Regarding the table analysing the number of criminal and non-criminal cases dealt with by the courts (questions 75 to 77), the CEPEJ decided to collect data concerning both first-instance proceedings and proceedings in courts of appeal and supreme courts.
27. The CEPEJ adopted the revised Scheme for evaluating judicial systems (CEPEJ(2007)11) and instructed the secretariat to finalise the explanatory note accordingly. It decided to submit the Scheme to the Committee of Ministers for approval.
28. The Secretariat presented the electronic version of the Scheme, which should be operational in September 2007. This system should simplify the transfer of data collected by the national correspondents to the Secretariat and the processing of the data by the experts. Each national correspondent would have an access code and would thereby be able to enter data in the system, modify them if necessary and subsequently validate them. The national correspondents would be asked to transmit their countries' replies solely via the electronic version of the Scheme.
29. To take account of the federal structure of certain states, notably Germany and Switzerland, it was agreed that the secretariat would investigate, with the competent technical bodies, the possibility of adapting the electronic system so as to allow national correspondents to delegate answering the questionnaire to federated entities.
30. The CEPEJ decided that the deadline for transmitting replies to the secretariat would be 31 December 2007, while allowing for the specificities of federal states. The members of the CEPEJ were asked to submit to the secretariat before 1 September 2007 the names and contact details (including email addresses) of their national correspondents responsible for collecting the data.
31. It was decided that the GT-EVAL would prepare the draft report, with the support of a scientific expert and the secretariat. The draft report should be presented at the CEPEJ's 11th plenary meeting in the summer of 2008.
32. The CEPEJ endorsed the Secretariat's proposal that a call for candidatures be launched, to be circulated by the members of the CEPEJ and published on the CEPEJ web-site, in order to select a scientific expert responsible for processing the data.
List of key data
33. On the basis of a preliminary working document (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL(2007)2), the CEPEJ discussed the feasibility of defining a set of key data to be updated between two evaluation exercises. Some delegations considered that this would represent an additional workload which their administrations would be unable to cope with. Others were in favour of this approach allowing reporting of new developments, which were sometimes rapid (particularly in the transition countries), and of policy choices made by certain states in order to reinforce their judicial systems.
34. It was suggested that updating of these key data should be optional. The exercise would not result in a report with a commentary, involving detailed processing of the data, but could be confined to mere publication of updated data on the web-site for those countries which so wished.
35. The CEPEJ asked the GT-EVAL to pursue its discussions on this subject, taking into account the viewpoints expressed at this meeting, and to submit proposals to its 10th plenary meeting.
Guidelines on judicial statistics
36. On the basis of a preliminary draft document (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL(2007)4Prov3) presented by Mr Georg STAWA (Austria) on behalf of the GT-EVAL, the CEPEJ discussed the advisability of adopting guidelines on judicial statistics, for submission to the Committee of Ministers, with the aim of facilitating the collection and processing of uniform data in the 47 member states.
37. The CEPEJ gave its agreement in principle and asked the GT-EVAL to draw up a draft text along these lines.
38. It was proposed that the guidelines should be closely linked to the evaluation scheme, since the objective was above all to enhance the quality of the CEPEJ's judicial systems evaluation exercise.
39. The Chair of the Groupe de pilotage (steering group) of the SATURN Centre, Mr Jacques BÜHLER (Switzerland), announced that the group was ready to propose a common methodology for calculating the length of proceedings, which could be appended to these guidelines. However, the group would be unable to formulate a proposal before the end of 2008 since it would need to consult the pilot courts beforehand and to advance further in its own work on judicial timeframes.
40. The members of the CEPEJ were asked to send their comments on the preliminary draft guidelines to the Secretariat.
41. The member in respect of France proposed establishing, in this connection, a specific co-operation mechanism to strengthen the credibility of data collected by the CEPEJ from the member states. It was suggested that, on a voluntary basis, a team of two or three members of the CEPEJ should visit a third member state with a view to improving their knowledge of the functioning of its data collection mechanism and pooling good practices. France was willing to welcome a team on a trial basis and to participate in any visit to another country by a co-operation team.
42. A number of delegations endorsed this proposal. The CEPEJ accordingly asked the GT-EVAL to propose such a co-operation mechanism and its Bureau to implement the mechanism on an experimental basis with volunteer member states. Travel and subsistence expenses should as far as possible be borne by the states willing to participate in this pilot project. This approach could then be further developed, along lines yet to be defined, subject to the availability of the necessary funds.
6. Measuring the impact of Council of Europe recommendations on mediation
43. Mr Rimantas SIMAITIS (Lithuania), Chair of the Working Group on Mediation (CEPEJ-GT-MED), and Mr Julien LHUILLIER (France), scientific expert, presented the draft guidelines for better implementation of the recommendations in force concerning mediation in civil, family, administrative and criminal matters and the report analysing the impact of these recommendations in the member states, on which the draft guidelines had been based.
44. The CEPEJ congratulated the GT-MED on this work and agreed on the principle of adopting such guidelines for the attention of the Committee of Ministers and the member states in order to foster effective implementation of the principles set out in the relevant recommendations and to propose amendments thereto if appropriate. Nonetheless, at the request of a number of delegations, it was decided to postpone adoption of the guidelines so as to allow members of the CEPEJ more time to submit comments on the draft documents, which should reach the secretariat by 15 September 2007. The Secretariat was instructed to amend the draft documents in the light of these comments.
45. The Secretariat pointed out that the work currently being done on this subject might be of interest for the 28th Conference of European Ministers of Justice to be held in Lanzarote (Spain) on 25 and 26 October 2007 on the theme "Emerging issues of access to justice for vulnerable groups". The focus would be on migrants and asylum seekers and also children. However attention could be drawn to the guidelines on mediation in this context. The CEPEJ accordingly asked its Bureau to propose an appropriate procedure (if possible written) for adopting these guidelines in time for the conference.
46. The CEPEJ also decided to publish, as a working document, the analysis on assessment of the impact of the recommendations concerning mediation (CEPEJ (2007)12).
47. Mr SIMAITIS reported on the conference "Mediation in Europe: present challenges and future developments" which Lithuania's Ministry of Justice had held in Vilnius on 24 and 25 May 2007 and in which a number of experts from the GT-MED had participated.[4] The CEPEJ thanked the Lithuanian authorities for this initiative, which had provided an opportunity to present and discuss its ongoing work.
7. Groupe de Pilotage of the SATURN Centre for judicial time management -
48. The Chair of the Groupe de pilotage of the SATURN Centre, Mr Jacques BÜHLER (Switzerland), presented the work schedule drawn up by the group (see document CEPEJ-SATURN(2007)2) on the basis of an analysis of available information on judicial timeframes. A questionnaire was being fine-tuned with the assistance of five pilot courts. Once it had been finalised it would be sent to all the pilot courts (who would be requested to broaden the survey to other relevant courts in their respective countries), the aim being to gather and process the largest possible amount of information relevant to the management and calculation of judicial timeframes. The group also intended to define indicators for measuring timeframes and to prepare guidelines on mastering judicial timeframes before the end of 2008.
49. The CEPEJ gave its support to the work in progress.
8. Quality of justice
50. The Secretariat presented a progress report on the work of the GT-QUAL (see document CEPEJ-GT-QUAL(2007)5), chaired by Mr Daimar LIIV (Estonia). Since this complex subject was being addressed for the first time, the GT-QUAL initially planned to determine the principal elements which the CEPEJ deemed to constitute components of the quality of justice (see document CEPEJ-GT-QUAL(2007)6).
51. The CEPEJ was informed that the Network of pilot courts had been consulted regarding the working group's initial discussions. Some of the pilot courts had advised the group to simplify its approach, so as to organise the information in a manner directly accessible by the courts.
52. Reiterating the importance to be attached to promoting the quality of justice, the CEPEJ, endorsed the approach proposed by the GT-QUAL, while stressing the need rapidly to arrive at concrete measures, targeting specific fields.
53. The representative of the European Union of Rechtspfleger and Court Clerks said the EUR was ready to submit comments to the CEPEJ. He encouraged the working group to consider the feasibility of promoting quality standards based on an international reference system of the ISO type.
54. The representative of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) drew the CEPEJ's attention to the need for careful handling of the concept of quality of justice. He endorsed the approach adopted by the working group, while pointing out that the development of quality standards should neither interfere with the principle of judicial independence nor undermine the justice system's specific social role.
9. Co-operation with the Network of Pilot Courts
55. Mr John STACEY (United Kingdom) reported on the 2nd plenary meeting of the CEPEJ's Network of Pilot Courts. Only courts which had been active within the network over the last year had been invited to attend. In order to support the CEPEJ's work programme, the network had set up four committees on evaluation, quality, length of proceedings and mediation. A work schedule had been adopted for each committee (see document CEPEJ(2007)9).
56. The CEPEJ noted that co-operation with the pilot courts was essential to guarantee that its work reflected the realities of the day-to-day functioning of justice systems and to ensure the relevance of the tools and studies produced.
57. The members of the CEPEJ were invited to make regular contact with the pilot courts representing their countries so as to keep them informed of the CEPEJ's priorities and support the implementation of their own work programmes.
58. The member in respect of Estonia announced that his country was now represented within the Network. The member in respect of Bosnia and Herzegovina confirmed his country's interest in this work and said a representative for his country would shortly be appointed.
10. Targeted co-operation with member states
59. The Secretariat informed the CEPEJ that, to date, no new request for targeted co-operation had been registered. The Romanian authorities had not at this stage taken further action on the proposal presented orally by the member in respect of Romania at the 8th plenary meeting.
60. The CEPEJ invited member states which would like to benefit from a targeted co-operation activity to forward their proposals to the Secretariat, so they could be considered by the Bureau, subject to the budgetary resources available.
11. Relations between the CEPEJ and other Council of Europe bodies
61. The representative of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE), Mr Gerhard REISSNER (Austria), confirmed that body's interest in the studies the CEPEJ was preparing on the basis of the 2006 evaluation report. These might be taken into account by the CCJE when formulating future opinions. The CCJE was at the Committee of Ministers' disposal regarding any follow-up action given to the monitoring process on execution of judicial decisions. Mr REISSNER stressed the importance of the work on quality of justice, in which the CCJE was ready to co-operate. He also confirmed that the CCJE would support the next evaluation exercise, which was regarded as particularly interesting since it would make it possible to measure developments.
He also informed the CEPEJ of the work in progress within the CCJE on an opinion on the membership, role and competence of councils for the judiciary. This work had been launched following a conference entitled "Which council for justice?",[5] held in partnership with Italy's High Council for the Judiciary and Ministry of Justice and in co-operation with the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ), which also had observer status with the CEPEJ.
62. The representative of the Consultative Council of European Prosecutors (CCPE), Mr Vito MONETTI (Italy), confirmed that body's desire to co-operate actively with the CEPEJ. The report by its Bureau on the judicial systems evaluation exercise conducted by the CEPEJ (see paragraph 17 above) was a step in this direction.
The CCPE was also drafting an opinion on international judicial co-operation in criminal matters.
63. The representative of the European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ), Mr Eberhard DESCH (Germany), pointed out, in connection with the plan of action proposed by the CEPEJ to improve implementation of the CCJE's opinions, that the CDCJ had set up a Group of Specialists (CJ-S-JUST) responsible for reviewing Recommendation R(94)12 on the independence, efficiency and role of judges. The CCJE and the CEPEJ were represented within this group, which should finalise a draft document before the year end. He also congratulated the CEPEJ on its ongoing work concerning mediation, a field in which the CDCJ might, over the next two years, envisage updating certain recommendations in the light of the guidelines adopted by the CEPEJ. Lastly, he underlined that it was a good practice that the CEPEJ be represented by its President at the European Conference of Ministers of Justice and added that the guidelines might usefully be presented at this occasion.
12. Co-operation with the European Union
64. On behalf of the outgoing and current Presidents of the European Union, the members of the CEPEJ in respect of Germany, Mr Matthias HEGER, and Portugal, Mr Joao ARSENIO de OLIVEIRA, reported on developments and prospects in the judicial field within the European Union (see Appendix IV).
65. The Secretariat reported on the Conference "Work on e-justice" organised by the German Presidency of the EU in Bremen (29 - 31 May 2007) as a follow-up to the conference held in Vienna. The Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Ms Maud de BOER-BUQUICCIO, had represented the Organisation at the opening of this conference, and Mr Pim ALBERS, special adviser to the CEPEJ Secretariat, had participated in an expert capacity.
66. The member of the CEPEJ in respect of Germany confirmed that the main event of the European Day of Justice would be held in Aachen on 8 November 2007in co-operation with the Belgian and the Dutch authorities. High-level representatives from all three countries would attend. The programme would be in two parts: a mock trial competition open to students and workshops on cross-border child custody and visiting rights and execution of court decisions open to members of the judicial and legal communities.
67. The CEPEJ requested its members to forward as soon as possible to the Secretariat information on all events being held to mark the 5th European Day of Justice, so that it could be posted on the web-site. Members were also asked to encourage their countries' judicial institutions to submit candidatures for the "Crystal Scales of Justice" prize, which would be awarded in connection with the European Day of Justice in 2008.
68. The representative of the European Federation of Administrative Judges proposed setting up a European Day of Administrative Justice. Several delegations were in favour of extending the European Day of Civil Justice to other fields of law, and possibly justice in general.
69. The members of the CEPEJ were also informed of the signature, in May 2007, of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Council of Europe and the European Union, of which they received a copy accompanied by a circular letter from the Chair of the Ministers' Deputies to the Council of Europe's various committees.
13. Observers to the CEPEJ
70. The representative of the Association Magistrats Européens pour la Démocratie et les Libertés (MEDEL) drew attention to the importance of dealing with issues of relevance to judges and prosecutors in parallel. He was also in favour of holding a discussion on the quality of justice within the CEPEJ in addition to its activities on the efficiency of justice.
71. The representative of the European Federation of Administrative Judges said the replies to the questionnaire on the independence and efficiency of administrative justice had been examined at a workshop held in Wurzburg (Germany). The conclusions could be taken into account in the CEPEJ's judicial systems evaluation process.
72. The representatives of the European Union of Rechtspfleger and Court Clerks (UER) said the work of the CEPEJ had been presented and discussed at length at a conference held by the UER in Bucharest in March 2007. They invited the CEPEJ to send (a) representative(s) to the UER Annual Congress, to be held in Stockholm (Sweden) at the end of August. The UER confirmed that it would continue to monitor the activities of the CEPEJ's working groups, in which it had been invited to participate with observer status. It was pointed out that court clerks remained the key point of contact for justice system users.
73. The representatives of the International Union of Bailiffs (UIHJ) confirmed their organisation's interest in the CEPEJ study on execution of judicial decisions and its support for the research team concerned.
74. The representative of the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE) said her organisation was preparing its own recommendation on practising the legal profession. This work would not conflict with the Council of Europe's Recommendation R(2000)21. She underlined the importance of in-service training for lawyers and invited the CEPEJ to continue addressing this subject in connection with its judicial systems evaluation process.
75. The Secretary General of the European Judicial Training Network (EJTN) presented the network's composition and current activities, in particular the exchange programme for judges and prosecutors. Information could be found on the network's web-site.[6] A reinforced partnership should also be established with the Lisbon network.
76. The President of the CEPEJ extended a special welcome to the representative of the American Bar Association – Rule of Law Initiative (ABA-RoLI), to which the CEPEJ had granted observer status at its previous plenary meeting and which was represented at a meeting for the first time. The representative of the ABA-RoLI stressed the leading role played by the CEPEJ in the field of justice in Europe and said the CEPEJ's work and methodology concerning the evaluation of systems of justice were of direct relevance to his organisation's efforts to develop its own evaluation tools in various fields of law. The ABA-RoLI also conducted research activities of potential interest to the CEPEJ and wished to promote close co-operation between the two bodies.
14. Communication
77. The Secretariat presented the new discussion forum set up on the CEPEJ web-site. Few members of the CEPEJ had participated so far, and delegations were strongly encouraged to make use of this instrument for exchanging information with other members or experts within the CEPEJ. To derive maximum benefit from this innovative tool, the CEPEJ agreed to merge the forums reserved for members of the CEPEJ and for the pilot courts in a single forum open to members, observers, working group experts, the pilot courts and the national correspondents.
78. The CEPEJ also congratulated the secretariat on the publication of the Commission's first newsletter and thanked the leading figures who had contributed to the first issue. The members of the CEPEJ were invited to submit contributions to the second issue, which would be devoted to the Commission's 5th anniversary.
15. Other business
79. Further to a proposal by the Bureau, the CEPEJ agreed to celebrate its 5th anniversary on the occasion of its 10th plenary meeting. It asked the Bureau to organise this event, taking into account suggestions from members of the CEPEJ, which should reach the Secretariat by 15 September 2007.
80. The Secretariat informed members that the Law Faculty of Aix-Marseille University (France) had requested the CEPEJ's assistance with a research project on "progress and difficulties with a common judicial culture in the European judicial area". The CEPEJ agreed that it could support this project on condition that it was extended to all Council of Europe member states, including those outside the European Union. This support could take the form, inter alia, of consultation of members of the CEPEJ, its experts and members of the various networks (pilot courts, national correspondents) by the researchers. The CEPEJ asked its Bureau to follow up this matter via the Secretariat.
Appendix I
Agenda
1. Opening of the meeting, by Ms Maud de BOER-BUQUICCHIO, Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe
2. Adoption of the agenda
3. Information by the President of the CEPEJ, CEPEJ members and the Secretariat
4. Recent developments in the judicial field in the Council of Europe member states
5. 2006 Activity Report of the CEPEJ: discussion in view of its adoption
Rapporteur: Ms Gökcen TURKER (Turkey)
6. Process for evaluating European judicial systems
§ Impact of the 2006 report in the member states
§ Thematic Studies based on the 2006 Report: state of affairs of the on-going works
Rapporteur: Ms Elsa GARCIA MALTRAS de BLAS (Spain)
§ 2006 – 2008 Evaluation round
o examination of the revised drafts of the Scheme for evaluating European judicial systems and its Explanatory Note, in view of their adoption
o presentation of the electronic questionnaire
o timetable and working methods, including the study of specific comments by some member states
o exchange of views for working out a list of key data and a working methods for updating these key data between two evaluation processes
o exchange of views for working out draft CEPEJ guidelines on judicial statistics
Rapporteur: Mr Georg STAWA (Austria)
o cooperation with the European Union
7. Measure of the impact of the Council of Europe Recommendations on mediation
§ Examination of guidelines for a better implementation of the Recommendations in force concerning mediation, in view of their adoption, and of Mr Julien Lhuillier’s analysis concerning the “Evaluation of the impact of Council of Europe recommendations concerning mediation".
Rapporteur: Mr Rimantas SIMAITIS (Lithuania), President of the Working Group on mediation
§ Vilnius Conference on mediation (24 - 25 May 2007)
§ 28th Conference of the European Ministers of Justice (Lanzarote, 25- 26 October 2007)
8. SATURN Centre for judicial time management
§ Working plan and on-going work of the Groupe de Pilotage
Rapporteur: Mr Jacques BÜHLER (Switzerland)
§ Diffusion and impact of the relevant reports and documents adopted by the CEPEJ in 2005 and 2006
9. Quality of justice
§ Working plan and on-going work of the CEPEJ-GT-QUAL
10. Cooperation with the CEPEJ Network of Pilot Courts
Rapporteur: Mr John STACEY (United Kingdom)
11. Targeted cooperation with member states
12. Relations between the CEPEJ and the other bodies of the Council of Europe
13. Co-operation with the European Union
§ Last developments within the European Union in the judicial field
Rapporteurs: Mr Matthias HEGER (Germany) and Mr Joao ARSENIO de OLIVEIRA (Portugal) on behalf of the outgoing and incoming presidencies of the European Union
§ Memorandum of Understanding between the Council of Europe and the European Union - Letter of the Chairperson of the Ministers’ Deputies
§ Preparation of the 5th edition of the European day of Civil justice and the 3rd edition of the Crystal Scale of Justice
14. Observers to the CEPEJ
15. Presentation of the new Discussion Forum of the CEPEJ web site
16. Any other business
§ Celebration of the 5th anniversary of the CEPEJ in December 2007
Appendix II
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS / LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS
CEPEJ Members /Membres de la CEPEJ
ANDORRA/ANDORRE
Carme OBIOLS, Secrétaire Générale, Conseil supérieur de la Justice, ANDORRE LA VIEILLE,
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 of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council BiH, SARAJEVO
Mersudin PRUZAN, Deputy Disciplinary Prosecutor, 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 at the Sofia Appellate Court, SOFIA
CROATIA/CROATIE
Alan UZELAC, Ph.D. Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb, ZAGREB
CYPRUS/CHYPRE
Loukis SAVVIDES, Ex-Judge of the Supreme Court of Cyprus – Legal Consultant, LIMASSOL Apologised / Excusé
CZECH REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
Ivana BORZOVÁ, Head, Department of Civil Supervision, Ministry of Justice, PRAGUE
DENMARK/DANEMARK
Klaus Rugaard, Chief Adviser, Documentation and analyses, Danish Court Administration, COPENHAGEN
ESTONIA/ESTONIE
Margus SARAPUU, Secretary General, Court Administration, Ministry of Justice, TALLINN (Member of the CEPEJ-Bureau / Membre du Bureau de la CEPEJ)
FINLAND/FINLANDE
Liisa Heikkilä, Senior Specialist, Department of Judicial Administration, Ministry of Justice, HELSINKI
Kari Samuli KIESILĀINEN, Head of Department, Directorate General, Ministry of Justice, HELSINKI, Apologised / Excusé
FRANCE
Jean-Paul SUDRE, Avocat Général près la Cour d’Appel de Paris, PARIS
GEORGIA/GÉORGIE
Ekaterine TKESHELASHVILI, Chairperson of the Court of Appeal of Tbilisi, TBILISI, Apologised / Excusée
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 du Bureau des Droits de l’Homme à la Cour Suprême de Hongrie, BUDAPEST
ICELAND/ISLANDE
Simon SIGVALDASON, Judge, Chairman of the Court Administration, REYKJAVIK
IRELAND/IRLANDE
David FENNEL, Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, DUBLIN
Ciaran KELLY, Principal Registrar High Court, Courts Service, DUBLIN
ITALY/ITALIE
Fausto DE SANTIS, Directeur Général au sein du Bureau de l’organisation judiciaire, Ministère de la Justice, ITALIE (Chair of the CEPEJ / Président de la CEPEJ)
Giovanni DIOTALLEVI, Vice-Chef du Bureau de l’Organisation judiciaire, Ministère de la Justice, ROME
LATVIA/LETTONIE
Aija BRANTA, Judge of the Constitutional Court, RIGA
Agnija KARLSONE, Head of Public Relations Division, Court Administration, RIGA
Kaspars SEMEVICS, Adviser to the Director of the Court Administration, RIGA
LITHUANIA/LITUANIE
Rimantas SIMAITIS, Attorney at Law, VILNIUS (Chair of the CEPEJ-GT-MED / Président du CEPEJ-GT-MED)
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, 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, Councilor at the 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
Merethe Baustad RANUM, Senior legal adviser, Judicial Department, National Court Administration, TRONDHEIM
POLAND/POLOGNE
Beata Z. GRUSZCZYŃSKA, Institute of Justice, Ministry of Justice, WARSAW
Tadeusz ERECINSKI, Professor of Law, President of the Supreme Court of Poland (Civil Chamber), WARSAW, Apologised / Excusé
PORTUGAL
João ARSENIO DE OLIVEIRA, Conseiller juridique, Bureau de la Politique législative et du Plan, Ministère de la Justice, LISBONNE
ROMANIA/ROUMANIE
Iulia SCÂNTEI, Counselor to the Minister of Justice, BUCHAREST
SERBIA/SERBIE
Vladimir DAVIDOVIC, Head of Department for International Co-operation and European Integration, Ministry of Justive, 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
SLOVENIA/SLOVÉNIE
Marko SORLI, Vice President of the Supreme Court, 1000 LJUBLJANA
SPAIN/ESPAGNE
Elsa GARCÍA-MALTRÁS DE BLAS, Public Prosecutor, Legal Advisor, Ministry of Justice, DG International Legal Cooperation, MADRID (Member of the CEPEJ-Bureau / membre du Bureau de la CEPEJ)
Eduardo Angel PERDIGUERO BAUTISTA, Magistrat, Chef du Service de l’Organisation et de la Modernisation Judiciaire, MADRID
SWEDEN/SUÈDE
Mattias ALMQVIST, Legal adviser, Division for Procedural Law and Court Issues, 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"
Nikola PROKOPENKO, Head of Unit of Courts and Public Prosecution Office, Miinistry of Jusice, SKOPJE
TURKEY/TURQUIE
Gökcen TÜRKER, Judge, DG for International Law and Foreign Relations, Ministry of Justice, ANKARA
UKRAINE
Olesya BARTOVSHCHUK, Head of Division for coordination of the execution of the ECHR judgements, Office of the Government Agent before the European Court of Human Rights, Ministry of Justice, KYIV, Apologised / Excusée
UNITED KINGDOM/ROYAUME‑UNI
Deirdre BOYLAN, Policy Officer, European and International Policy Division, Department for Constitutional Affairs, LONDON
John STACEY, Head of Civil & Family Rules and Jurisdiction Branch, Her Majesty's Courts Service, LONDON (Vice-Chair of the CEPEJ / Vice-président de la CEPEJ)
***
OBSERVER STATES / ÉTATS OBSERVATEURS
HOLY SEE/SAINT-SIÈGE
Odile GANGHOFER, Docteur en droit, Mission permanente du Saint-Siège, STRASBOURG
JAPAN/JAPON
Yasushi FUKE, Consul (Attorney), Consulate-General of Japan, STRASBOURG
***
OBSERVERS / OBSERVATEURS
WORLDBANK / BANQUE MONDIALE : Apologised / Excusée
***
COUNCIL OF THE BARS AND LAW SOCIETIES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION / CONSEIL DES BARREAUX DE l’UNION EUROPÉENNE (CCBE)
Jana WURSTOVÁ, Lawyer, Adviser, Czech Bar Association, PRAGUE, Czech republic
EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION OF JUDGES / Association européenne des MAGISTRATS (EAJ)
Gerhard REISSNER, Vice-President of the Austrian Association of Judges, President of the District Court of Floridsdorf, VIENNA, AUSTRIA
EUROPEAN UNION OF RECHTSPFLEGER AND COURT CLERKS / UNION EUROPÉENNE DES GREFFIERS DE JUSTICE (EUR)
Gabriele GUARDA, Greffier en chef, Tribunal de Padoue, Président de l'EUR, PADOUE, ITALIE
Roberto GALULLO, Greffier en chef, Procura della Repubblica, MILAN, ITALIE
Jean-Jacques KUSTER, Greffier en chef, Tribunal d'instance, Représentant de l'EUR auprès du Conseil de l'Europe, STRASBOURG, FRANCE
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF BAILIFFS / UNION INTERNATIONALE DES HUISSIERS DE JUSTICE ET OFFICIERS JUDICIAIRES (UIHJ)
Bernard MENUT, Secrétaire, MIRABEAU, FRANCE
Mathieu CHARDON, Premier secrétaire, VERSAILLES, FRANCE
EUROPEAN FEDERATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES / FÉDÉRATION EUROPÉENNE DES JUGES ADMINISTRATIFS
Pierre VINCENT, Cour admininstrative d’appel de Nancy, NANCY, FRANCE
MAGISTRATS EUROPÉENS POUR LES DÉMOCRATIES ET LES LIBERTÉS (MEDEL)
Eric ALT, Magistrat, Conseiller reférendaire dans la Cour de Cassation, PARIS, FRANCE
european judicial training network / RÉseau EuropÉen de Formation Judiciaire (REFJ)
Gilles Charbonnier, Secrétaire Général, Bruxelles, BELGIQUE
Quentin Balthazart, Conseiller politique, assistant du Secrétaire Général, Bruxelles, BELGIQUE
EUROPEAN NETWORK OF COUNCILS FOR THE JUDICIARY (ENCJ)/RESEAU EUROPEEN DES CONSEILS DE LA JUSTICE (RECJ) – Apologized /excusé
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION - RULE OF LAW INITIATIVE (ABA-RULE OF LAW)
Simon R. CONTÉ, Acting Director, Research & Program Development, ABA Rule of Law Initiative, WASHINGTON DC, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
***
COUNCIL OF EUROPE'S BODIES / INSTANCES DU CONSEIL DE L'EUROPE
PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE / ASSEMBLÉE PARLEMENTAIRE DU CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE
Michel HUNAUT, Membre de la délégation française à Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe, Comité des Affairs juridiques et des Droits de l’Homme, Apologised / Excusé
Andrew DRZEMCZEWSKI, Chef du Secrétariat, Commission des Questions Politiques et des Droits de l’Homme
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS / COUR EUROPENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME
Paola TONARELLI-LACORE, Registry, European Court of Human Rights / Greffe de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme
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)
Vito MONETTI, Substitut du Procureur de la République, Cour de Cassation, ROME, ITALIE
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
***
CEPEJ-WORKING GROUPS / GROUPES DE TRAVAIL DE LA CEPEJ
Rimantas SIMAITIS, Attorney at Law, VILNIUS, LITHUANIA (Chair of the CEPEJ-GT-MED / Président du CEPEJ-GT-MED)
Jean-Paul JEAN, Avocat général Cour d’Appel de Paris, Professeur associé à l’Université de Poitiers, Parquet Général, PARIS, France (Chair of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL / Président du CEPEJ-GT-EVAL), Apologised / Excusé
***
Scientific Expert / Expert scientifique
Julien LHUILLIER, ATER, Chercheur à la Faculté de droit de Nancy, NANCY, FRANCE
***
SECRETARIAT
Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs /
Direction Générale des Droits de l’Homme et des Affaires Juridiques
Fax: +33 3 88 41 37 43
e-mail: [email protected]
Stéphane LEYENBERGER, Secretary of the CEPEJ / Secrétaire de la CEPEJ, Tél : +33 3 88 41 34 12
Muriel DECOT, Co-Secretary of the CEPEJ / Co-secrétaire de la CEPEJ, Tél: +33 3 90 21 44 55
Pim ALBERS, Special Advisor to the Secretariat of the CEPEJ/ Conseiller spécial auprès du Secrétariat de la CEPEJ, Tel : +33 3 90 21 47 74
Jean-Pierre GEILLER, Documentation / Documentation Tel : +33 3 88 41 22 27
Sandrine MAROLLEAU, Communication / Communication, Tél: +33 3 90 21 52 08
Elisabeth HEURTEBISE, Assistante, Tel : +33 3 88 41 35 54, Fax : +33 3 88 41 37 45
***
Mario REMUS, Department for the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights / Service de l’exécution des arrêts de la Cour européenne des Droits de l’Homme, Tel: +33 3 3 88 41 26 32
***
Interpreters / Interprètes
Olivier OBRECHT
Nicolas GUITTONNEAU
Opening Speech by Maud de Boer-Buquicchio,
Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe
I will start with two short points. The first one is that justice is vital to all three core values of the Council of Europe. There is no rule of law without justice, there are no human rights without justice and there is no democracy without justice.
My second point is that, to some extent, the term “efficient justice” is a tautology, because when you think about it, there is no such thing as inefficient justice. If justice is not efficient, it is no longer justice at all.
This explains why CEPEJ occupies such an important place in the Council of Europe family, and your activities are recognised as an important part of the Council of Europe core mandate as reaffirmed by the Third Summit of the Council of Europe Heads of State and Government in 2005, and I am very pleased to be here on the occasion of your plenary meeting which marks “le passage de pouvoir” between the outgoing and the new president. I would like to pay tribute to the dedicated work of Mr Eberhard Desch and I wish his successor, Mr Fausto de Santis, much success in this important and responsible post.
I would like to congratulate you on creating tools for improving judicial time management. The establishment of the SATURN Centre has been very well received, and it represents an effective and specific instrument to measure the length of proceedings in our member states.
The Committee of Ministers has also entrusted your Committee with important tasks in the monitoring process of national court decisions, on the basis of the 2006 evaluation report. The conclusions drawn from this report will have a direct and positive impact on the functioning of justice in our member states.
Your role is complementary to other Council of Europe bodies involved in judicial issues. The CCJE and the CCPE have been explicitly invited to look at the 2006 evaluation report of judicial systems, and draw conclusions relevant to their specific area of work. The CEPEJ is also conducting work which complements the activities of the Venice Commission concerning delays in judicial proceedings.
Your Committee is also making a valuable contribution to the functioning of Council of Europe mechanisms for the protection of human rights. As an example, I would like to single out your co-operation with the Department for the Execution of Court Judgments in relation to the execution of court decisions by public authorities in the Russian Federation.
The importance of your work has been explicitly recognised by the European Court of Human Rights in several of its judgments.
Another important aspect of your work is related to e-justice: the recently organised Conference on this topic in Bremen by the EU Presidency, was an occasion for me to explain your work in this area, which has been much appreciated and supported by the very many participants.
Finally, I should also like to congratulate you on your success in improving the communication and the visibility of CEPEJ and the Council of Europe as a whole. Even if we all accept that it is more important to do good rather than look good, very often the former does not work without the latter – and your media success with the 2006 evaluation report should serve as an example to other parts of the Council of Europe on how to better publicise and improve the impact of their work. This impressive visibility exercise is very well supported by your new web site and the recently launched newsletter.
I will conclude with three messages.
The first one is that CEPEJ has created very high expectations with its 1st evaluation round. The 2ndevaluation round, which should result in a new report in 2008, should meet these expectations. I would like to call on all 47 member states to support and fully participate in the process. I understand that this represents a considerable burden on national correspondents and administrations, especially in the federal states which have to consolidate data from the different entities, but the result is well worth the effort. Moreover, an electronic questionnaire has been prepared, and this will hopefully make life easier for national correspondents and experts as well as the Council of Europe Secretariat who collects and processes the data;
My second message is an encouragement to member states to benefit from the possibility of targeted co-operation on reforms in the judicial field. CEPEJ already has very good experience in countries such as the Netherlands, Malta, Croatia and Slovenia or more recently the Russian Federation and France. CEPEJ has much competence and is eager to share it, and other countries are strongly encouraged to follow suit.
My last point is addressed to you, the members of CEPEJ. You have an important role to play in your discussions in Strasbourg, but also upon your return to your countries. Your active involvement at home is essential in ensuring that the high quality instruments and reports of the CEPEJ benefit the policy makers and the judiciary in improving their functioning and the services they provide to citizens.
Justice is about law and law is abstract, but the results of your work are not. Through your activities, you contribute to more justice and better justice for our citizens, and I would like to thank you, to congratulate you and to encourage you to continue with the same commitment, excellence and success.
Thank you very much.
Appendix IV
Priorities of the Portuguese Presidency of the Council of the European Union in the field of Justice
From the 1st July 2007 on Portugal will hold the Presidency of the Council of the European Union.
It is the third time Portugal plays this role since its accession to the European Communities 21 years ago.
Portugal is already participating in the «troika», namely in justice affairs. So it is no surprise that the Portuguese presidency will keep up the work already developed by the previous presidencies.
The Portuguese Presidency in Justice will be developed according to three main axes: e-justice; public international law and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and fight against crime according to the co-operation mechanisms foreseen in the European Union Treaty and the European Community Treaty as well.
To this we may have to add the negotiations for the ratification of the amendments to the existing Treaties and all that implies in terms of the organization of the European Union judicial system, judicial means of reaction by the citizens and States and all other legal and judicial aspects the new treaty implies.
First major priority: e-justice
Citizens and companies demand a faster and more efficient justice and to achieve that purpose e-justice is absolutely fundamental.
The Portuguese presidency will, therefore, try to give a new impulse to the already in motion works on electronic justice, in the civil and penal areas. The Portuguese Presidency will have as one of its mains tasks to promote the dematerialisation and simplification of processes and procedures in civil and criminal matters, allowing, for instance, that the exchange of information between the different national authorities is quicker, more efficient and less of a burden to the citizens and the enterprises.
The second major priority: solving the citizens’ and companies’ problems/new private international law solutions and ADR
Now that the European Community has joined the Hague Conference on Private International Law it is high time to start thinking on new solutions to determine, «inter alia» the applicable law to several contracts (Rome I), divorces and alimonies (Rome III), having conscience of three essential words: predictability, efficiency and simplicity.
Following, amongst other instruments, the Council of Europe Recommendation (2002) 10 on mediation in civil matters (which includes civil rights and obligations, labour, consumers and commercial law), the Portuguese presidency will pay special attention to ADR processes, namely mediation. The on-going works on civil and commercial mediation will be continued by the Portuguese presidency in order to try to achieve a consensus in this important subject.
Third major priority: fight against crime, through permanent co-operation
The Portuguese presidency will continue the work in progress to make the judicial and police co-operation more effective, especially when fighting organised crime and terrorism, but respecting the person’s fundamental rights.
Portugal will take particular care with the use of personal data, now that ADN profiles databases will be used in a pan-european perspective.
Portugal will also make an effort so more measures of mutual recognition of decisions can become a reality in the European Union.
According to the agenda of the Presidency there will be an informal meeting of the Justice and Internal Affairs Ministers in Lisbon, on the 1st and 2nd October, among other meetings and activities which will take place in Portugal.
Please notice that the Council of Europe and the work of the CEPEJ will be present through out the Presidency. It was not just a coincidence that I have used so many times the word efficiency and that I have mentioned at least once a Council of Europe legal instrument.
Portugal is determined to make the European Union legal aspects more efficient, respecting the relevant decisions and lessons of the Council of Europe.
[1]www.coe.int/CEPEJ, under "Events which mention the CEPEJ "
[2] www.coe.int/CEPEJ, under "Country profiles "
[3] CCPE-Bu (2007) 11
[4] A special file is available on the CEPEJ web-site (www.coe.int/CEPEJ).
[5] The proceedings of the conference can be accessed on the web-site of the CCJE: www.coe.int/CCJE.