Strasbourg, 22 November 2007
CEPEJ-SATURN (2007)3
European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ)
SATURN CENTRE
for the study and analysis of judicial time management
Questionnaire on common case categories, judicial timeframes and delays
1. Basic information of the court
|
Absolute numbers |
|
|
1. Number of professional judges |
|
|
2. Number of non-professional judges (including lay judges) |
|
|
3. Number of non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges (case file preparation, assistance during the hearings, keeping the minutes of the meetings, helping to prepare the decisions) such as registrars and/or non-judge staff (Rechtspfleger), with judicial or quasi-judicial tasks having autonomous competence and whose decisions could be subject to appeal |
|
|
4. Number of staff in charge of different technical, administrative or managerial tasks (management of human resources, of material and equipment – including computer systems – of finances and budget and the management of training) |
2. What type of cases does your court decide? (Please include a brief definition of the types of cases)
3. Can you provide statistical information of the following common-case categories (if applicable and available for your court) for the reference year 2006?
|
Applicable |
Caseload of the court |
|||||
|
Common case categories |
Yes |
No. pending cases on 1 jan. ‘06 |
No. of incoming cases |
No. of decisions |
No. of pending cases on 31 dec. ‘06 |
% cases pending more than 3 years |
|
Civil law cases (total number) |
||||||
|
1. Commercial litigious and regular litigious civil claims |
||||||
|
2. Small claims |
||||||
|
3. Company cases |
||||||
|
4. Bank law cases |
||||||
|
5. Patent cases |
||||||
|
6. Contract cases |
||||||
|
7. Tort cases (esp. car accidents, medical liability, liability of other professionals) |
||||||
|
8. Inheritance cases |
||||||
|
9. Labour cases |
||||||
|
10. Litigious employment dismissal cases |
||||||
|
11. Application of interim relief cases i.e. injunction procedures |
||||||
|
12. Opposition to injunction cases |
||||||
|
13. Land registry cases |
||||||
|
14. Business register cases |
||||||
|
15. Enforcement of judgment action and of other enforceable titles |
||||||
|
16. Litigious divorce cases |
||||||
|
17. Non-litigious divorce cases |
||||||
|
18. Children custody cases |
||||||
|
19. Action for support and maintenance |
||||||
|
Public and administrative law cases (total numbers) |
||||||
|
20. Social welfare/security cases |
||||||
|
21. Fiscal/tax cases |
||||||
|
22. General disputes between a private person and the government |
||||||
|
23. Asylum and immigration law cases |
||||||
|
Criminal law cases (total numbers) |
||||||
|
24. Intentional homicide cases |
||||||
|
25. Assault |
||||||
|
26. Rape cases |
||||||
|
27. (Armed) robbery |
||||||
|
28. Theft |
||||||
|
29. (Domestic) Burglary |
||||||
|
30. Traffic offences (with defence) |
||||||
|
31. Drug offences |
||||||
|
32. Money laundering |
||||||
|
33. Terrorist acts |
||||||
|
34. Cyber crime |
||||||
|
35. Organised crime |
||||||
Remarks/comments on statistics and common case categories
4 To which extent do you register information on the length of proceedings for the following main case categories?
|
No information collection on length of proceedings |
Start and end of procedures only |
Also including intermediary steps |
Including information on waiting time |
|
|
Non-criminal cases |
||||
|
Criminal cases |
Specification/description of the starting point and the ending point of a court proceeding
Specification/description of the intermediary steps (if applicable)
5. Please describe the definition used to calculate the average length of proceedings/timeframes:
6. What kind of statistical information regarding the length of proceedings can be extracted from the available court performance information (e.g. only average length of proceedings (in days, months, years), median, spread, percentage of cases decided in a given period, etc)?
7. Can you provide statistical information on the following case categories concerning the average length of proceedings (in days and the percentage of cases of the year 2006 decided within a given period)?
|
Common case categories |
Applicable |
Percentage cases decided within a period of: |
||||||
|
Yes |
Average length in days |
< 1 month |
> 1 month and < 6 months |
> 6 months and < 1 year |
> 1 year and < 2 year |
> 2 year and < 3 year |
> 3 year |
|
|
Civil law cases (total number) |
||||||||
|
1. Commercial litigious and regular litigious civil claims |
||||||||
|
2. Small claims |
||||||||
|
3. Company cases |
||||||||
|
4. Bank law cases |
||||||||
|
5. Patent cases |
||||||||
|
6. Contract cases |
||||||||
|
7. Tort cases (esp. car accidents, medical liability, liability of other professionals) |
||||||||
|
8. Inheritance cases |
||||||||
|
9. Labour cases |
||||||||
|
10. Litigious employment dismissal cases |
||||||||
|
11. Application of interim relief cases i.e injunction procedures |
||||||||
|
12. Opposition to injunction cases |
||||||||
|
13. Land registry cases |
||||||||
|
14. Business register cases |
||||||||
|
15. Enforcement of judgment action and of other enforceable titles |
||||||||
|
16. Litigious divorce cases |
||||||||
|
17. Non-litigious divorce cases |
||||||||
|
18. Children custody cases |
||||||||
|
19. Action for support and maintenance |
||||||||
|
Public and administrative law cases (total numbers) |
||||||||
|
20. Social welfare/security cases |
||||||||
|
21. Fiscal/tax cases |
||||||||
|
22. General disputes between a private person and the government |
||||||||
|
23. Asylum and immigration law cases |
||||||||
|
Criminal law cases (total numbers) |
||||||||
|
24. Intentional homicide cases |
||||||||
|
25. Assault |
||||||||
|
26. Rape cases |
||||||||
|
27. (Armed) robbery |
||||||||
|
28. Theft |
||||||||
|
29. (Domestic) Burglary |
||||||||
|
30. Traffic offences (with defence) |
||||||||
|
31. Drug offences |
||||||||
|
32. Money laundering |
||||||||
|
33. Terrorist acts |
||||||||
|
34. Cyber crime |
||||||||
|
35. Organised crime |
||||||||
8. Please give an indication of the level of complexity in the collection of data on the court performance:
|
Very proble-matic |
Proble-matic |
Easy |
Very easy |
Not appli-cable |
|
|
Incoming cases |
|||||
|
Pending cases |
|||||
|
Decisions |
|||||
|
Length of proceedings |
9. How is the court performance information registered?
Information manually registered (handwritten or typed registers)
Information is registered in a computerised (court) database
10. Is court performance information (internal and or external) published and available for: judges, court staff, and ministry of justice, parliament and society and at what level of detail?
|
Yes |
Very detailed information |
General information |
|
|
Judges |
|||
|
Court staff |
|||
|
Higher courts |
|||
|
Ministry of Justice |
|||
|
High Judicial Council |
|||
|
Ministry of Justice |
|||
|
Parliament |
|||
|
Society/citizens |
Remarks
11. What is the margin of error of the court performance data collected and used in your court?
12. Do you monitor timeframes with a long duration (in terms of numbers of days and according to the (performance) norms you are using) separately? (Tick box if yes). If not, go to question 14.
13. What is in your court defined as a case with a long duration (according to the norms (days, months, years) you are using)?
Definition:
14. Can you describe the case categories tending to last longer than the norms that in your court are defined as reasonable? Can you also give an indication of the percentage of these cases in relation to the total number of incoming cases in the court?
|
Case categories |
% of the total number of incoming cases |
|
1 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
3 |
|
|
4 |
|
|
5 |
15. How often causes the following factors in your court delays in the court proceedings ?
Very Often Some- Never
Cause often times
Delaying tactics from the parties
Lack of information from the parties
Extraordinary events in the court
Waiting time or stand still time
Other
16. Can you rank the five main causes for delays (1 is the factor which contributes the most to a delay and 5 is the factor which contributes the least to a delay). Please give a score to five causes from 1 to 5
Cause Score (1 to 5)
Complexity of a case
Delaying tactics from the parties
Lack of information from the parties
Involvement of witnesses
Involvement of experts
High caseload
Lack of court staff
Lack of judges
Internal court organisation
The (complexity of the) law
Extraordinary events in the court
Waiting time or stand still time
Other
17. Which measures have been undertaken to reduce the length in court proceedings and for which specific case categories? What are the results.
18. Hypothetical cases. Can you give a description of how these cases are treated by the court (only the cases that are applicable for your court)? Can you give also an indication of the timeframes for these cases?
Case A. Criminal law case - Voluntary violence
During a night out in a club, X consumed several alcoholic beverages and behaved aggressively towards several people present, provoking them verbally. A fight ensued between X and Y during which X punched and kicked Y very hard, before A and Z, employees of the club, overcame him.
Y, who had been heavily wounded and apparently had a broken nose, a broken wrist and many contusions, was immediately brought to hospital, while X, who suffered a few bruises on the forearms, was handed over to the police who had been called by the manager of the club.
Investigation of the facts:
· determining of the course of events, X and Y obviously giving contradictory versions of the setting off of the fight and of its progression,
· determining the nature and the seriousness of the injuries sustained by Y: for the needs of the case, we will assume that the injuries led to a 5-day hospitalisation and a month of sick leave,
· determining the nature and the seriousness of the injuries sustained by X: for the needs of the case, we will assume that the bruising suffered by X did not lead to any sick leave.
Description of the treatment of the case in practice and an estimation of the average length of proceedings in days for this particular case over all and for all the different stages
…
Case B Civil law case - Road accident
This case study is typical of a road traffic case heard in a civil court. The aim of this exercise is to have identified how a court in your Country would manage this case and the timeframes in days for each stage of the proceedings. The information should be presented in the form of a chronology in four parts. The parts should focus on the following stages: 1. Commencement of proceedings, covering pre action behaviour, issue and service of proceedings, 2. Pre trial stage from filing of defence to commencement of the final hearing, 3. Final hearing and 4. Preparation and perfection of the judgment
Description of the treatment of the case in practice and an estimation of the average length of proceedings in days for this particular case over all and for all the different stages
Case C Administrative law case – Residence permit
Person A was born in X country on 12 April 1971 and has that country’s nationality. She gave birth to a son, called B, on 2 October 1991; he has the same nationality as his mother.
In 1999, A stayed for the first time legally in country Y (Y = the country of the referring court). During her stay in the country Y, she worked professionally as a kitchen help in the Grand Hotel Palace in the capital city of the country.
After that first stay, A stayed for short periods of time in her country of origin in order to look after her son B and remained the rest of the time in country Y to work regularly in the same hotel. Her stay and professional activity were authorized by the relevant administrative authorities of country Y. She regularly gives part of her salary to the members of her family who are bringing up her son in order to pay his allowance and various other costs linked to her son’s education and schooling. She also phones him regularly, in general once a week and does not fail to send him a present for his birthday as well as for the main religious festivals.
During her stay in Y country, A met person C, born on 3 January 1951 and from Z country (neighbouring country of Y country, member of the Council of Europe). He has been living in Y country since 1966; he has permission to live there on an unlimited basis.
Person A and person B Dupond got married on 12 December 2003. In January 2004, person A was also given an unlimited residence permit to live in Y country. On 15 June 2007, she asked for her son to join her in Y country, invoking the clause relative to family regrouping. The relevant administrative authority refuses the request on 16 July 2007. within the legal timeframe, person A opposes the decision.
To this day, person A has never been the subject of any penal request from his country. Since the end of his schooling, he has worked as a storekeeper in various big shopping malls in his country. His income is irregular, he has indebted himself to buy a motorcycle, a debt which he pays back at regular intervals.
Person A opposes all the negative decisions which refuse family regrouping, by invoking Art. 8 ECHR and the bilateral treaties in force between countries X and Y which only allow limited immigration subject to the authorisation of X country to Y country. She states, on the basis of the facts mentioned above, that she has a privileged strong bond with her son, despite the geographical distance. She invokes that her son could have a better professional training in Y country. She produces all the necessary information within the given deadlines, without asking for any further delay.
All the administrative and/or judicial authorities called upon to give a verdict on this case ruled against family regrouping, giving the following reason: The mother herself was instrumental in being separated from her son; the latter has no privileged relationship with his step-father person C; he has an adequate family setup in his own country; he is almost an adult; he does not have a profession which would justify authorising immigration; the fact that he would benefit from a better professional training in Y country does not justify family regrouping.
Description of the treatment of the case in practice and an estimation of the average length of proceedings in days for this particular case over all and for all the different stages
18. Remarks on the questionnaire
Yes
The questionnaire is understandable
The questionnaire is close to judicial reality
The questionnaire is usable for obtaining information from other courts
Remarks and suggestions
|