Strasbourg, 30 October 2006 CEPEJ-GT-EVAL (2006) 8
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
WORKING PARTY ON THE EVALUATION OF JUDICIAL SYSTEMS
(CEPEJ-GT-EVAL)
6th meeting, 11 – 13 October 2006
MEETING REPORT
1. The Working Party on the Evaluation of Judicial Systems (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL) of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) held its sixth meeting at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg from 13 to 15 October 2006.
2. The agenda and the list of participants of the meeting appears in Appendices I and II to this Report, respectively.
1. Information by the Secretariat
3. The Secretariat informed the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL that at the 974th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies, the evaluation report 2006 was presented by the President of the CEPEJ, Eberhard DESCH. The Deputies unanimously "welcomed" the report, underlined the quality of this work, supported the methodology followed and acknowledged its high value for judicial reforms in the member states. They stressed that it was a fundamental contribution of the CEPEJ to the essential objectives of the Council of Europe in the field of the Rule of law. They supported the idea that the report was a first step of the process, to be followed by in-depth analysis of the results to be able to interpret them and draw useful conclusions for public policies of justice in the member states. Some Deputies stressed also the usefulness of conducting this process on a regular basis so as to be able to sharpen the results and assess the evolutions of judicial systems.
4. The Secretariat informed the Group on the publication of the report, and in particular the press conference with the participation of Eberhard DESCH, Jean-Paul JEAN and Guy DE VEL, which took place on 5 October in Strasbourg. It was preceded by several individual meetings with representatives of the media in various member states. The Report was published on the CEPEJ web site, together with a document of presentation and the full replies to the Scheme from individual states.
5. The Group was further informed that, in order to prepare its Communication on the evaluation of judicial policies in the European Union, and following the meeting between the Vice-President of the European Commission, Mr Franco FRATTINI, and the CEPEJ at its 7th plenary meeting, the European Commission invited the CEPEJ Secretariat to participate in a brain storming meeting (Brussels, 18 September 2006) with the EU member states and the relevant international professional organisations, institutes and NGOs working in the judicial field.
As regards the evaluation of the national judicial systems, all the participants agreed that there should be no duplication with the evaluation mechanisms already in force. The EC representatives, supported by many member states, clearly referred to the CEPEJ evaluation process as the main source for evaluating national judicial systems of European states (as an already existing and successful mechanism, agreed upon by all EU member states). CEPEJ would be closely associated to the Forum and the relevant working groups. If appropriate, CEPEJ could be requested by the EC to carry on specific studies on the basis of its own findings.
2. Analysis of the 2004 – 2006 process
6. The Chair of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL underlined that the quality of the report was the result of a team work and paid a specific tribute to the scientific expert, Ana-Maria FALCONI and to the Secretariat. The experts confirmed that the quality of the report had been improved compared with the 2002 report.
7. Regarding the dissemination of the report the experts insisted on the usefulness of having the report and the document of presentation translated into other languages. The Secretariat stated that it was for the member states to ensure these translations, referring to Romania which had already finalised a translation, available on the CEPEJ web site.
8. The Secretariat indicated that 1.000 copies were available in both official languages. A distribution list would be used to send the report to the priority stakeholders in the member states (ministries of justice, main judicial institutions), among the relevant CoE bodies and to the relevant international and European organisations.
Lessons to be learned to improve the process for evaluating judicial systems
9. The Chair stressed that attention should be paid to the timetable of the evaluation process and the persons responsible for it. Relying on further discussion with the network of national correspondents, the experts acknowledged that September was a reasonable starting point for the collection of statistical data of the previous year in each country. They agreed that it would be necessary to recruit in the future a statistician to be stationed for a specific period of time within the Secretariat of the Council of Europe, and stressed that comments in the report should be mainly prepared by the experts of the Working group, with the support of the Secretariat.
10. The experts stressed that too much time was dedicated to the verification of data, and that further improvement of the process should be focused on this issue, in particular in using an electronic scheme to be directly filled (and corrected) by the national correspondents (see below).
3. In-depth studies from the report
11. The GT-EVAL proposed that the further issues be addressed as a priority when analysing in depth the 2006 report:
a) Issues to be addressed within the CEPEJ
§ by the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL:
- identification of lacuna in providing relevant statistics and formulation of concrete guidelines in order to enable the collection in all member states of common and homogenous judicial statistics – member states could also be invited to set up a synopsis of the relevant cases as regards Article 6 ECHR
- identification of key areas to invest money as regards judicial systems
- classification of member states (for instance according to four categories) in according to main topics to be defined
- analysis of criminal policies and role of prosecution systems
- specific analyse of the answers to questions 54 (performance indicators; targets)[1] and 123 (main orientations for reform and concrete measures which could improve the quality and the efficiency of your judicial system) of the Scheme
§ by another specific CEPEJ working group:
- specific analysis of lengths of proceedings, identification of lacuna to get useful data and recommendations to calculate length of proceedings according to homogenous methodology
b) Issues to be proposed to other Council of Europe's bodies
§ CCJE: analysis on the findings of the report as regards the status of judges, (in particular recruitment, professional guarantees, discipline and sanctions, professional and non professional judges)
§ CCPE: analysis on the findings of the report as regards the status of prosecutors (in particular recruitment, professional guarantees, discipline and sanctions)
§ Lisbon Network: training of judges and prosecutors
c) Issues to be addressed through a call for projects to external researchers (see below)
§ access to justice
§ administration and management of judicial systems
§ workload of courts and individual judges
§ non judicial tasks of courts
§ Information Technologies in court systems
§ execution of court decisions
§ in addition to this list, researchers could be free to develop other issues proposal on that may be assessed relevant for the work of the CEPEJ.
12. The Chair indeed stated that as a result of the evaluation exercise 2006 a large database had been created on judicial systems, which could be of interest for universities, interest-groups, research centres.
In accordance with the instructions of the 7th plenary meeting of the CEPEJ, the GT-EVAL prepared a draft protocol for research projects and defined a list of priority issues (see above) opened for research projects by external persons/bodies (see Appendix IV to this report).
The Secretariat was instructed to publish and disseminate the protocol and the call for project on the website and to the CEPEJ members and relevant Networks. The GT-EVAL proposed that researchers be invited to visit the next meeting of CEPEJ-GT-EVAL in January 2007[2] to explain their research proposals and to answer questions of the experts of CEPEJ-GT-EVAL. The experts would decide on the proposals to be granted with the CEPEJ label, under the authority of the Bureau of the CEPEJ.
13. The CEPEJ-GT-EVAL offered to manage and follow this process, under the authority of the Bureau of the CEPEJ.
14. The Secretariat insisted on the issue of execution of court decisions, to be addressed as a priority as the Committee of Ministers was expecting specific conclusions and possibly recommendations within the framework of its thematic monitoring process.
4. Adaptation of the Evaluation scheme according to the conclusions of the evaluation and the definition of a core of key-data
15. The GT-VAL started to review the evaluation Scheme by making use of the documents prepared by the scientific experts Ms FALCONI and having in mind the designing of an electronic questionnaire.
16. They agreed as a principle to keep as far as possible the questionnaire as it was, to stabilise data collected, and to keep the current numbering of the questions – if necessary, it could by indicated that question x had been deleted.
17. The experts supported the proposal to asking the correspondents whether qualitative data had changed from one exercise to another, instead of requesting them to fill again automatically this kind of questions, which may reduce the workload. If possible, a reference in the questionnaire (for example via a pre-filled in questionnaire) should be made to data collected in the previous exercise. Technical feasibility of such issue should be checked.
18. Regarding reference sources for general statistical data, it was proposed that the next questionnaire could be pre-filled using whenever possible data available within the Council of Europe. Should this not be possible, correspondents should be urged to use as far as possible the same source (for instance OECD).
19. The experts also recommended inserting a question on the exchange rate and the national currency, to avoid difficulties in analysing the financial data received from the member states. It was suggested to see whether the computerised questionnaire could ensure an automatic calculation in euros of other currencies indicated, on the basis of a rate to be indicated at the beginning of the questionnaire.
20. The chair suggested including in the new questionnaire a question concerning the increase or decrease of the budget over the past five years. This information was necessary to identify trends.
21. As regards Question 63 (cases concerning the European Court of Human Rights), the experts confirmed its importance, although it was difficult for the countries to provide the data. This would stimulate countries to collect such essential information as regards the implementation of the ECHR.
22. The Scheme could be sharpened as regards evaluation, monitoring and performance indicators.
23. A review of the questions would be necessary as regards recruitment and nomination of judges and prosecutors to know the composition of the relevant bodies and the part of judges/prosecutors in such bodies.
24. It was proposed to include also a question regarding the annual net salary of judges and prosecutors.
25. The experts agreed that questions 106 and 115 on enforcement of court decision were topical in the questionnaire.
26. The question of ADR was too complicated. The Secretariat would make suggestions to simplify this part by taking into account of the work carried out by the CEPEJ-GT-MED. A question could be introduced whether citizens can benefit from legal aid when making use of alternative dispute resolution.
27. Concerning the key-indicators on the judicial systems, the Secretariat was instructed to make a proposal for around 30 key relevant questions to identify the specific characteristics of the European judicial systems. The list would be discussed at the next meeting of CEPEJ-GT-EVAL.
5. The next evaluation process
28. The Secretariat presented a simulation of an electronic questionnaire, which made it possible to show the strengths and limits of the use of this technique for the next evaluation round. A list of technical requirements for the software that could be used for the development of an electronic questionnaire appears in Appendix IV to this report. A revised (electronic) questionnaire should be available for the next meeting of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL in January 2007.
29. The CEPEJ-GT-EVAL recommended to the CEPEJ that the evaluation process continues to be carried out on a two year cycle, which would enable inter alia:
§ to assess regularly the evolutions of the various judicial systems,
§ to take into account the rapid evolutions in some European states in transition,
§ to have enough time to analyse in depth and interpret data presented in the report,
§ to stimulate reform of judicial systems in member states, in accordance with European norms and standards,
§ to anchor the CEPEJ and the methodology used for the evaluation as the main reference as regards evaluation of justice in Europe, offering a working basis to other institutions (including the European Union).
They also underlined that the Report had created high expectations from the policy makers and the European legal community.
30. This would mean in practice that the next round should be initiated with a revised Scheme in September 2007 as regards 2006 data, for a report available in the course of 2008.
31. The experts acknowledged the workload that this would represent for national correspondents, but expressed the hope that the Group would be able to design tools (including the electronic questionnaire) which would facilitate this work. They added that both specific recommendations of data collection and the routine resulting from a regular process should facilitate data collection of data as well.
32. In addition, they suggested that an intermediary annual collection of key-data could be introduced, should an electronic questionnaire be able to facilitate the workload of the national correspondents.
Appendix I
AGENDA / ORDRE DU JOUR
1. Adoption of the agenda / Adoption de l’ordre du jour
2. Information by the Secretariat / Information du Secrétariat
3. Analysis of the 2004 – 2006 process / Analyse du processus 2004 - 2006
a. First analyses of the impact / Premières analyses de l'impact
a. Lessons learnt and recommendations to improve the process for evaluating judicial systems /Leçons à tirer et recommandations pour améliorer le processus d'évaluation
4. In-depth studies to be conducted from the Report and methodology / Etudes appronfondies à conduire sur la base du rapport et méthodologie
a. Selection of the topics to be addressed / Sélection des thèmes à traiter
b. Méthodology / Méthodologie
c. Definition of the modalities for agreeing specific studies researches by external researchers / Définition de modailtés pour agréer des études spécifiques conduites par des chercheurs externes
5. Adaptation of the Evaluation scheme according to the conclusions of the evaluation process and definition of a core of key data / Adaptation de la Grille d'évaluation en fonction des conclusions du processus d'évaluation et définition d'un corps de données-clé
6. Next evaluation process / Prochain processus d'évaluation
a. Frequency / Fréquence
b. Possibility of introducing a smaller (intermediary) questionnaire on key data / Possibilité d'introduire un questionnaire (intermédiaire) réduit sur les données clé
c. Possibility of introducing an electronic questionnaire or a web-based questionnaire / Possibilité de présenter un questionnaire sous forme électronique ou basé sur le Web
d. Cooperation with the European Union / Coopération avec l'Union européenne
e. How to make the process evolve from a descritive report towards a real evaluation report? / Comment faire évoluer le processus d'un rapport descrptif vers une réelle évaluation?
7. Any other business / Questions diverses
Appendix II
List of participants /Liste des participants
Fausto DE SANTIS, Directeur Général au sein du Bureau de l’organisation judiciaire, Ministère de la Justice, ROME, ITALIE
Elsa GARCIA-MALTRAS DE BLAS, Procureur, Conseillère à l’Unité d’entraide, Direction Générale des Relations avec l’Administration de la Justice, Ministère de la Justice, MADRID, ESPAGNE
Hazel GENN, Professor of Socio-Legal Studies, Faculty of Laws, University College London, LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM, Apologised / Excusée
Beata Z. GRUSZCZYŃSKA, Institute of Justice, Ministry of Justice, WARSAW, POLAND
Jean-Paul JEAN, Substitut général Cour d’Appel de Paris, Professeur associé à l’Université de Poitiers, PARIS, France, Chair of the GT-EVAL / Président du GT-EVAL
Mikhail VINOGRADOV, Lawyer, State Legal Directorate of the President of the Russian Federation (GGPU), MOSCOW , RUSSIAN FEDERATION
***
OBSERVERS / OBSERVATEURS
European Commision / Commission européenne
Katarzyna GRZYBOWSKA, JLS.C-3 Citizenship and Fundamental Rights, Directorate General Justice Freedom and Security, Apologised / Excusée
Julien LHUILLIER, Allocataire-moniteur de la Faculté de droit de Nancy 2, NANCY, FRANCE
***
SECRETARIAT
Directorate General I - Legal Affairs / Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques
e-mail: [email protected]
Stéphane LEYENBERGER, Secretary of the CEPEJ / Secrétaire de la CEPEJ, Tel : +33 3 88 41 28 41, e-mail: [email protected]
Pim ALBERS, Special Advisor / Conseiller spécial, Tel : +33 3 90 21 74 47, e-mail : [email protected]
Jean-Pierre GEILLER, Documentation / Documentation Tel : +33 3 88 41 22 27, e-mail : [email protected]
Elisabeth HEURTEBISE, Assistante, Tel : +33 3 88 41 35 54, Fax : +33 3 88 41 37 45, e-mail: [email protected]
Interpreters / Interprètes
Nicolas GUITTONNEAU
Christopher TYCZKA
William VALK
Appendix III
Protocol for the exploitation of the CEPEJ report
"European judicial systems – Edition 2006"
in view of preparing specific studies
1. On 5 October 2006 the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) published its report: "European judicial systems: Edition 2006". At its 7th plenary meeting, the CEPEJ agreed to pursue the analysis of the facts and figures presented in this report, to understand the functioning of justice systems, define common indicators to evaluate the functioning of justice systems, identify main trends and difficulties and orient the public policies of justice towards more quality and efficiency. The CEPEJ decided to make data available for use to researchers wishing to benefit from the official scientific support of the CEPEJ.
2. Therefore the CEPEJ is pleased to invite individual researchers or relevant bodies/institutes to work on specific studies which are listed in Appendix. The CEPEJ will also study other proposals based on its report.
3. The CEPEJ will grant an official label to this work.
4. To be eligible for a CEPEJ label, the study should:
§ aim to analyse in depth specific topics regarding the functioning and the organisation of European judicial systems from the data and information of the CEPEJ report, having full understanding for the methodology adopted and used by the CEPEJ while drafting its report; it could possibly include conclusions as regards the functioning of judicial systems;
§ involve a significant number of European countries, on a comparative perspective; a study carried on by a group of researchers from various European states working together could be given priority;
§ be targeted mainly on policy makers and judicial practitioners.
5. The study should be preferably prepared in English or in French (though derogation might be discussed), and presented in a document of around 30 pages (and possibly extra appendices) – however the length of the document might vary according to the issues addressed.
6. The researchers being granted the CEPEJ label will be offered a privileged access to the relevant information included in the unique raw CEPEJ database (existing partly in English and partly in French) resulting from the collection and processing of national data submitting by the member states. This information will be communicated by the CEPEJ Secretariat, in particular as relevant extracts of the database, under specific conditions for the use of the data. They will have the opportunity to work with the active support of the CEPEJ's networks of experts and exchange with them.
7. The final studies agreed by the CEPEJ will be published by the Council of Europe, in English and French, under its series "CEPEJ Studies ", mentioning the name of the authors.
8. The researchers might be funded by external sources, but the Council of Europe will not allocate specific funding for the preparation of the study. The researchers will be entitled to use the study for their own purposes. Specific modalities for publication and rules of copyrights will be agreed in a convention between the Council of Europe and the researchers.
9. An intention note must be submitted to the Secretariat of the CEPEJ (DG I – Legal Affairs – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex / [email protected]), preferably before 15 December 2006, indicating in one or two pages the rationale and general objectives of the study. The researchers might then be requested by the CEPEJ to develop their projects. They might be given the possibility to meet with CEPEJ's representatives in Strasbourg to discuss the project at the beginning of 2007 (possibly on 29 January 2007). Researchers will be informed on the CEPEJ's decision for supporting studies no later than 1 February 2007.
10. The study should be submitted to the CEPEJ Secretariat, before 15 September 2007, so that it can be approved and published before the end of 2007.
11. The CEPEJ informs researchers that, on a longer term perspective, it has the possibility to designate specific members or experts entrusted with the direction of academic thesis to co-supervise academic works which would be based on one of these studies, provided that this thesis include multinational elements (comparative thesis on a significant number of European countries and/or carried out under the supervision of universities/institutes from at least two European countries).
PRIORITY TOPICS TO BE ADDRESSED WHEN ANALYSING THE CEPEJ REPORT
"EUROPEAN JUDICIAL SYSTEMS – EDITION 2006"
CALL FOR STUDIES
1. Access to justice in Europe: as a fundamental principle of the right for a fair trial, trends and conclusions could be drawn on access to justice from the CEPEJ report and database, considering inter alia legal aid and the possibility to hire a legal representative; links between legal aid and the volume of cases brought to court could be possibly studied in this context; comments and conclusions could also be developed as regards the level of "juridicisation" of the European societies.
2. Administration and management of European judicial systems: in order to show the main European trends as regards judicial administration and management, assess their strengths and weaknesses, and possibly identify good practices, the study could analyse the information available in the CEPEJ report and database as regards the institutional organisation and management of judicial systems concerning, inter alia, budgetary processes, organisation of the court system, management of judicial and non judicial staff.
3. Workload of European courts and judges: crossing various data of the CEPEJ report and database (for instance judicial and non judicial staff available, financial resources, volume of cases filed at the courts, lengths of proceedings etc.) might enable to identify European trends as regards the workload of judges and possibly of individual judges and to design tools for public policies for the organisation and management of judicial systems.
4. Non judicial tasks of European courts and judges: courts and judges might be given non judicial tasks (of registration, certification, etc.) which are staff and time consuming. A study of the information available in the CEPEJ report and database might enable to have a concrete knowledge of the situation in the European states, in order to help policy makers organising court tasks and judicial procedures in the light of this valuable information.
5. Use of Information Technologies in European court systems: the development of "e-justice" is an essential element for improving the efficiency and quality of judicial systems. A study of the CEPEJ report and data base might enable to assess the trends as regards IT solutions introduced to assist the judges and court clerks as well as the users of the justice systems, and possibly identify best practices.
6. Execution of court decisions in European states: as there is no fair trial within a reasonable time without an effective and timely execution of the court decision, the study could analyse from the information of the CEPEJ report and database the various execution systems used in Europe and identify the main elements to be taken into account to assess and have an impact on the efficiency of the execution mechanisms. The study could also underline the main reforms implemented or planned in European states to improve the execution procedures – giving priority to the execution of civil, administrative and commercial law matters.
7. Any other topics: the CEPEJ will study any other proposal based aimed at exploiting and analysing the CEPEJ report.
Appendix IV
Technical requirements for the software ‘electronic questionnaire’ CEPEJ
At the meeting of CEPEJ-GT-EVAL the following needs for the software where expressed:
- The questionnaire should be multi-lingual (at least English and French)
- If possible, per country: there should be the possibility that multiple persons can fill in parts of the questionnaire; I.e. the national correspondent is the person that is responsible for submitting the final reply to the Secretariat of the CEPEJ, but he/she should have the possibility to send the electronic questionnaire also to other departments (or even other regions/provinces in cases of Federal States). It should be noted that, ideally speaking (for the non-French and non-English speaking countries) that the electronic questionnaire is also translated in their own national language.
- The respondent (national correspondent) should have the possibility to save the questionnaire, before submitting to the Secretariat, at his/her own computer or to save a file that can be retrieved via the Internet.
- The respondent should also have the possible to re-send a questionnaire, in case he/she has made corrections in the reply.
- It should be possible to print the electronic questionnaire, especially for countries who has problems with registration of the data via the internet, and to send it (a manual filled in questionnaire) (fax or regular post) to the Secretariat.
- There should be a flexible layout possibility for drafting the electronic questionnaire.
- The software should have maximum flexibility concerning the registration of qualitative data (based on text field). The software must have the possibility that the registration of the qualitative data (for example: remarks, examples or explanations) conducted by the respondents is done by ‘cut and paste’ work (for example copying a part of a Word-document in one of the fields of the electronic questionnaire).
- There should be a automatic check on validation of data (and identifying registration mistakes)
- If in certain fields quantitative data must be registered, there should be the possibility for ‘auto sum’ (summation of the individual quantitative fields).
- If possible, the software should have the possibility that the questionnaire is ‘individualised’ and for some part of the questionnaire the data is already ‘pre-filled’ with an answer of a previous year (submitted by the same respondent). Or alternatively that the reply of a previous evaluation is shown next to the registration field for the new questionnaire (for illustration purposes).
- The registered data, received from the various respondents, should be saved in a database which can be exported to other software applications (especially: Microsoft Excel, Access or a statistical package like SPSS).
- The application should have an easy reporting function for analysis the first results. The report itself may be published at a website, which is accessible for the respondents.
- The electronic questionnaire must be published at the website of the CEPEJ. As a result of this it must meet the requirements of the publication web templates used by the Council of Europe (or if possible the questionnaire should be opened in a single window.
- The questionnaire will be published at a restricted site of the CEPEJ.