Strasbourg, 10 June 2016




19th Meeting (15 - 16 March 2016)


Report prepared by the Secretariat

Directorate General I – Human Rights and Rule of Law


1.     The Quality of Justice working group (CEPEJ-GT-QUAL) of the European Commission for the efficiency of justice (CEPEJ) held its 19th meeting at the Council of Europe, in Strasbourg on 15 and 16 March 2016.

2.     The agenda and the list of participants are respectively attached in Annex I and II of this report.


3.     Mr François Paychère is appointed President of the Working Group for the years 2016-2017.


4.     The Secretariat informs the member of the Group of all major news concerning the report on the evaluation of European judicial systems, which this year will be published in a different format. The paper version will focus on four areas: budgetary resources, organisation of courts, court staff and performance of courts. Moreover, special attention will be given to the impact of information technology (IT) in reducing the workload of the courts, which will be the object of a thematic report. Finally, a dynamic grid database will allow a search criterion to retrieve the requested information.

5.   The Secretariat reiterates that for several years now, there are on-going cooperation programs in the Southern Neighbourhood (Morocco, Tunisia and Jordan), in the Eastern Partnership region (Azerbaijan, Moldova), and in Albania and Croatia. The aim of these programs is to provide the policy makers and the courts of these countries with the CEPEJ tools on judicial time and quality of justice, entirely taking into account national specificities. Furthermore, in France there is an on-going cooperation activity with the Tribunal de Grande Instance (TGI) in Avignon. This activity aims to inform the public of the estimated processing times of family cases handled by the TGI.   


6.     The Ministry of Justice in Austria gives a detailed presentation on a project regarding the quality of justice based on a broad participatory process, which involved both the users and the professionals of justice, and that lasted for about one year. First, this process helped identify all important elements for the quality of a public justice service, which are, in order of importance, the intelligibility of a decision, the clarity of a motivation, the access of the public to judicial decisions, good time management and judicial process, respect for human rights, access to justice, infrastructure and the equipment of court buildings with modern devices, independence and impartiality. After these elements were identified, the remaining issue was to define indicators and performance criteria, and to provide the courts (in particular the Presidents of courts) with all resources and tools to achieve them. In this regard, several textbooks were sent to the Presidents of courts and trainings were provided to support the implementation of the "quality" project, which began in early 2016 and it is the object of a periodic evaluation by the Department of Justice. 

7.     The Group is interested in the aspects that drive the courts to take part in this project, which is essentially not mandatory. Georg STAWA explains that there are several motivational factors: small financial resources will be allocated to those courts that do not join the project, and besides they will not be part of a large-scale process which sees the involvement of other jurisdictions; the advantages of joining the project include better satisfaction of court staff and stakeholders through increased understanding of their own performance, the acknowledgement of users’ expectations and a better guarantee of independence, in particular through a high quality entrusted financial management. Georg STAWA also explained that the Department of Justice will publish a report on the implementation of the project for the attention of the public at large, but that the information obtained through the project will be used by the Department to better understand and compare some aspects of court functioning. He also emphasises the importance of the choice of performance indicators and of the identification of priorities for action, in order to lead the project, at the same time by paying attention not neglecting other elements of the quality of justice. Having been asked to comment on the convenience of call rates as an indicator of the good performance of a judicial system, Mr STAWA explains that this indicator can be useful for legal professionals, but it is actually of little interest to users.


8.     Mr Fabio BARTOLOMEO (Italy) presents a document entitled "Measuring the quality of judicial services." This paper attempts to measure justice service delivery; it does not tackle the issue of quality of judicial decision and it consists of four main parts. After an initial introduction on the importance and feasibility of measuring the quality of judicial services through indicators and predefined standards, the document focuses on three aspects that should be considered as measurement objects: 1) procedures and judicial decision, 2) the performance of judiciary services, and 3) the satisfaction of users.

9.     The quality of procedures and of  the judgment can be found in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which lists several components, including the fairness and length of reasonable legal proceedings, the public nature of the judgement, the right to legal aid and access to justice, just to name a few. Mr Fabio BARTOLOMEO notes that these elements are found in the CEPEJ "Checklist for the quality of justice and courts", which is meant to be used as a "radiography" of a particular legal system and it can be used to measure the quality of a legal system. Indeed, the number of positive responses to the questions of the Checklist can be used as measurement indicator.

10.  Performance can be measured by several criteria: the length of proceedings, the court’s or a judge’s productivity, structural and organizational indicators, management efficiency, the cost of each individual case and of the procedure.

11.  User satisfaction can also be measured in terms of satisfaction surveys. Mr Fabio BARTOLOMEO observes that a tool, the CEPEJ Handbook on satisfaction surveys, was already developed by the Group, and it can therefore be used in this regard.  

12.  The President, Mr PAYCHERE, highlights from the outset the approach of valorisation of existing instruments and their complementary nature, made by Mr Fabio BARTOLOMEO. During the roundtable which follows this presentation, a point frequently raised is the value to be assigned to different indicators, where some participants note that the criteria set by the Article 6 of the ECHR in determining the quality of justice, should have greater importance over the others. Moreover, a member notes that elements such as legal certainty or control of legality should also be included among the criteria, and he/she wonders whether to include all points of the Checklist as measurement criteria; another member agrees on the right choice to give priority to Article 6 of the ECHR, including the independence and the impartiality of justice. Finally, a question is asked about the recipient(s) of the document: is this addressed to the courts or to the policy makers?

13.  Mr Fabio BARTOLOMEO replies that each recipient - whether a central authority or a court - is free to choose the most interesting elements in its quality verification process. The idea is not to select indicators, but to see if they are applied or not. The document aims to provide a range of elements that allow the user to check whether every aspect is, or is not, carried out, and thus to measure the quality of a judicial system in all its components.

14.  The President, Mr PAYCHERE mentions the points that are the subject of a consensus within the Group. The document will not look at the content of judicial decisions but will focus on the relationship with the defendant. The Checklist will be entirely incorporated and aligned with the terminology and the indicators used in the "performance" section with the SATURN indicators. Satisfaction surveys are confirmed as suitable measuring instruments. Finally, Mr François PAYCHÈRE underlines the need to acknowledge the complexity of measuring the quality of judicial services, and he shares the view of Mr Fabio BARTOLOMEO on using the widest possible range of indicators.

15.  The Group agrees to set a deadline at the end of April to make any comments on the document presented by Mr Fabio BARTOLOMEO, and to instruct the Secretariat to ensure the consistency with the performance indicators developed by the CEPEJ-GT-SATURN. A revised document should reach the Secretariat at the latest by the end of July, this will then be discussed during the next CEPEJ-GT-QUAL meeting, in order to be adopted during the CEPEJ plenary in December 2015.


  1. During its 18th meeting, the CEPEJ-GT-QUAL started a discussion about driving the change towards cyberjustice, on the basis of a text prepared by the Secretariat. The latter had been asked, together with a scientific expert, Mr Harold EPINEUSE, to present a more comprehensive text at the 19th meeting.

  1. Mr Harold EPINEUSE presents the "Guidelines on how to drive changes towards cyberjustice". This document is a turning point in the finalization of a more comprehensive text, which will be based both on the data that will be available in the CEPEJ report on new technologies (see III. 4), and on the outcomes of the discussions that will be conducted during the first half of 2016 by the expert himself. The first part of the Guidelines identifies existing solutions, at European level, in the field of digital justice, depending on the purpose sought: access to justice, communication between courts and professionals, court administration and direct assistance to judges and clerks. The second part aims at supporting policy makers in managing changes towards cyberjustice, by putting into perspective general principles and practical experiences, which have been particularly useful in the development and implementation of policies and IT projects in the judiciary.

  1. The members of the Group confirm that the organisation of the document in two-parts meets their expectations, and make proposals about its content. First, they recommend to enrich the first part of the document with concrete and comprehensive examples of IT applications used in different countries, essentially by relying on the information available in the CEPEJ evaluation process (in this regard, the need to maintain a specificity of the document in relation to the work of the EVAL is put forward, although the possibility of cross-references and repetition is not excluded). Furthermore, the members agree to keep the SWOT tables in the text. It is also suggested to highlight the requirement of compatibility of any cyber justice project with high standards of quality of justice (including values ​​such as confidentiality and protection of personal data), as well as the effect of the technique on judicial systems; to make references to the "Checklist for the quality of justice" in the second part; to add a bibliography including points of interest and footnotes; and finally, to insert at the end of the document a "checklist" to evaluate all IT projects.

  1. The representative of the Council of Europe (CCBE) asks for clarification on the use of the term "cyber justice" (with respect to the e-justice used by the European Union) and highlights the main challenges for lawyers with regard to the application of digital justice: the use of a too complex technology for the user, the confidentiality of communication and its conservation in external servers. This last point is considered, but from a different perspective, by the representative of the European Union of Rechtspfleger (EUR), who emphasizes the importance of data archiving and electronic records for all procedures. He also highlights the importance of IT and communications technology training for the staff.

  1. The Group appoints Mr Harold ÉPINEUSE in the preparation of a new version of the Guidelines, on the basis of the elements emerged from the discussion and to present it during the next CEPEJ-GT-QUAL meeting, in order to be adopted during the CEPEJ plenary in December. The President also invited Mr Harold ÉPINEUSE to further develop paragraph n.56 and to contextualize item n.94, by specifying how the work of researchers can help the change of the management process towards the cyber justice.


  1. During its 18th meeting, the CEPEJ-GT-QUAL took note of the preliminary study of a scientific expert, Mr Francesco DE SANTIS, regarding effective domestic remedies entitled "Protection to the right to a fair trial, dysfunction of justice and implementation of effective domestic remedies". While highlighting the value of the first and second part of the study, concerning respectively the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on effective remedies and the implementation of such remedies in some member states of the Council of Europe (with particular emphasis on acceleratory remedies), the Group decided to focus on structural measures to be taken ahead of the introduction of the effective remedies, in order to relieve judicial systems and to improve the functioning of justice. The Group appointed Mr Francesco DE SANTIS to develop the third part of the document on these issues, and to highlight the best practices adopted by the Member States to ensure the proper functioning of judicial systems, in particular by relying on action plans completed by the Committee of Ministers in the framework of the process of execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

  1. Mr Francesco DE SANTIS presents the document "Which actions to improve the functioning of justice and relieve judicial systems?" which has been prepared on the basis of the information previously given by the Group. He notes that for "good practices", are meant all actions which, while remaining acceptable to the public finances, are likely to reduce the overload of the courts and judicial delays without producing, at the same time, excessive barriers to the right of access to courts or prejudging the fairness of proceedings. These measures include: 1) the judicial system and the distribution of cases among various jurisdictions; 2) the tendency to reduce collegiality and to strengthen monocratic decisions; 3) the organization of courts and the rationalization of working methods; 4) the "case management"; 5) other actions touching on procedural rules, in particular those concerning remedies and summary proceedings; 6) directions of action regarding the "demand for justice", non-judicial resolution of disputes, the abuse of procedural rights, and ultimately the importance of consultation and dialogue, reflection and communication during the implementation phase of reforms, which should be subject to regular monitoring, both in terms of performance and "feedback" of operators.

  1. Several participants stress the quality of documents, which meets the expectations of the group in relation to a "toolbox" of best practices which Member States can use. However, there is a risk that the document is perceived as a list of measures aimed at increasing only the effectiveness and the efficiency of judicial systems, at the expense of their quality. It is important that the next revision of the document will reflect more explicitly this essential element, especially in the introduction, which should highlights that the proposed good practices fall within the context of the principles of quality of justice and respect of all guarantees to the right to a fair trial, as stated by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In addition, several participants recommend adding the experiences from other countries in the document, including Nordic countries. There are other proposals on how to improve the document; these regard in particular, the explicit reference to the principle of proportionality: among all possible measures, it would be desirable to prioritize those which cause the least possible pressure on other indicators of the quality of justice. Moreover, participants agree that a long-term justice reform policy seems preferable to emergency measures, which are adopted under constraint.

  1. The Secretariat also indicates the opportunity to introduce references, either in the title of the document or in the text itself, to the link existing between the proposed structural measures and the Article 13 of the ECHR. The E.U.R proposes to detail the important role carried out by clerks, legal advisers, and by the court staff with regard to judges’ assistance.

  1. At the end of the discussion, it is agreed that the members provide all information needed to update the document at the latest by 15 April. Mr DE SANTIS is responsible for preparing a new version of the document by 15 May at the latest. The document will be subject to electronic consultation among the members, and it will be finalized and adopted during the next CEPEJ plenary meeting in June 2016.


  1. The delegations of Tunisia and Azerbaijan share their experiences on satisfaction surveys. The President of the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Zaghouan informs the participants that a satisfaction survey on the services rendered by the CFI (particularly regarding the operation of the Registry and respect of judicial delays), addressed to lawyers within the jurisdiction of CFI, was recently conducted based on CEPEJ tools. In particular, a steering committee was created to plan, implement, evaluate and monitor the survey. The President emphasizes that the investigation was a real tool for managing changes within the CFI. Besides, the reception of the defendant has improved thanks to additional personnel, and steps have been taken to allow judges to pronounce their judgments more quickly. This work had a positive impact on lawyers’ satisfaction who expressed their approval to the innovations introduced. The experiment was successful and the President would like to repeat it by targeting court users.

  1. With reference to Azerbaijan, satisfaction surveys will be implemented in the near future with the assistance of the CEPEJ. The delegation stressed that the respect of judicial delays is of key importance for the litigants, and in this respect, they are systematically informed by the judge of the stages of the proceedings.

  1. Mr Martial PASQUIER, scientific expert, points out that satisfaction surveys are an important tool in the overall analysis of the quality of justice. He makes comments regarding the Manual and how this could be improved, and focuses on three particular aspects: 1) the scope of the surveys, 2) the structure of the questionnaire, and 3) the peripheral elements of an investigation

  1. Regarding the first point, the expert stresses the need to introduce a distinction between indicators, which allow steering a change within the institution, and monitoring information, which provide a general sense of trends and are less relevant for the change management. Furthermore, the manual focuses on non-homogeneous issues, concerning both operational aspects and features related, for example, to the understanding and trust of the court user. In this respect, the investigation should be first and foremost a tool to measure satisfaction with the services of justice, and should also take into account the diversity of stakeholders and their expectations. A logical modularization and diversification of the questionnaires, tailored to targeted audiences, should be retained.

  1. With regards to the questionnaire, it is recommended to place sociological and demographic factors at the end of the form, in order to guarantee the privacy. Attention should also be given to the proper wording of questions and to the point of view of the user, who does not necessarily know the specifics of the law (e.g. the differences between types of legal proceedings). This also applies to the double-scaling importance - satisfaction. This solution is not always easily understood by the respondents, and it is better to treat it either sequentially or, with a specific question, by requesting a feedback from the user on the aspects that he/she considers most important.

  1. As for peripheral issues, it is recommended to always keep a chronological distance between the service experience and the time when the survey was conducted, because justice has a very strong emotional component. We must also keep in mind that 15 to 20% of respondents are not able to respond to the questionnaire. Therefore, it is important to ask key and clear questions to the defendant. In addition, investigations must be registered on time and they should provide some degree of stability. In this regard, it is suggested to include additional tools in the Manual to keep track of the data collected, and to capture the information with a long-term perspective. Finally, it is important to keep records, within a logical process of improvement and change based on the facts outlined and the answers provided by the satisfaction surveys’ recipients. Doing differently would inevitably raise frustration.

  1. Several comments were made by the members, after the presentation of Professor Martial PASQUIER. Mr Fabio BARTOLOMEO stresses the importance not to question litigants during court cases, but only once the decision has been pronounced. He notes the difficulties posed by the double scaling, and recommends a further exploration of the matters concerning question sampling on one side, and on the other, all issues linked to existing solutions present in several countries as regards the software of analysis and collection of data. Other members wonder about the key points of a customer satisfaction survey: on one hand they agree that important elements to consider include the level of experience of the country in question, its resources and the means of action at its disposal; on the other hand, that it is preferable to follow a gradual approach, proportionated to available means and resources, which efficiently permit to face the identified weaknesses. Some questions are also raised with regard to the form of the investigation, and if a methodology is preferable. In this regard, Mr Martial PASQUIER replies that telephone and internet surveys should not last longer than 10 or 15 minutes, while a live interview with the litigant should not exceed 20 to 30 minutes. The more experienced is the public, the more it is possible to use online questionnaires. However, if the public is less experienced, telephone or face-to-face interviews should be preferred, because the respondent can eventually ask to repeat or clarify the questions. 

  1. Following this discussion, the CEPEJ-GT-QUAL agrees to begin the revision of the Manual, and of the related questionnaires. In this regard, the principle of a toolbox with different questionnaires by target groups and adaptable to specific needs is retained. The members of the Group are invited to send their comments on how to improve these two instruments by the end of April, in order to allow Professor Martial PASQUIER to present a new version during the next meeting of the Group.


  1. The Group wonders about the possibility of starting exploring new fields of work, namely as regards knowledge sharing within the judiciary and the communication with the media and the public.

  1. The Secretariat reminds that the Checklist dedicates a number of questions to the issue of knowledge sharing, particularly Chapter IV, which includes human resources. The proposed approach is to think more broadly about how judges acquire and apply knowledge in their daily work. The participants also note that the theme of the knowledge sharing among courts should be further explored.

  1. The Secretariat also presents the work of other bodies of the Council of Europe on the communication of the judiciary with the media and the public. These include the Opinion 2013 (8) of the Consultative Council of European Prosecutors (CCPE) on the relations between the media and the public prosecutor, and the Opinion 2005 (7) of the Consultative Council of European Judges on "justice and society". Both texts set out major principles on which should be based the communication between the prosecution and the media on one hand, and the relationship between the courts and the public, as well as court users and the media on the other hand. Both texts formulate a series of recommendations on these issues. 

  1. In the subsequent discussion, participants agree that communication with the media and the public could be an interesting topic of work. Nevertheless, duplicating the work done by other committees should be avoided. The Secretariat proposes in this regard to highlight practical aspects of organising the communication of the courts, to show a real complementarity. For example, all European experiences regarding the role and powers of the spokespersons could be further analysed. All reports made as part of the cooperation programs in Turkey and Albania will be sent to the members so that they can forge a more accurate opinion on the development of the work. The two aforementioned Opinions will also be transmitted.

  1. The Group decides to hold a thorough discussion on these issues during the 20th meeting.

  1. Mr Ioannis SYMEONIDIS (Greece) shows to the participants a project of reorganization of the Checklist on quality of justice, focusing on the reorganization of the existing chapters according to the different issues dealt by the Group over the past years. The proposed approach is to highlight the key issues of the Checklist, as those directly related to the rule of law and the application of the guarantees included in Article 6 of ECHR.

  1. The issue of the complementarity of the Checklist proposed by Mr Ioannis SYMEONIDIS, together with the document prepared by Mr F. BARTOLOMEO is raised. The President underlines the need to prioritize the finalisation of the latter document, an opinion shared by the Secretariat. Moreover, one of the members stress the importance of not revising the Checklist, which is a guiding document of the work of the CEPEJ-GT-QUAL, moreover recently adopted. The importance of ensuring continuity is also shared by all other members of the Group.

  1. Finally, Mr João ARSENIO DE OLIVEIRA (Portugal) proposes, as a possible theme of work, the quality of legislation, which is mainly addressed to public policy makers and drafters of legislation or regulations.

Strasbourg, 8 mars 2016




Groupe de travail sur la qualité de la justice


19th meeting (15-16 March 2016)

Conseil de l’Europe, Strasbourg – Palais (salle 14)


  1. Adoption of the agenda

  1. Appointment of the President of CEPEJ-GT-QUAL

  1. Information of the President and the Secretariat

  1. Presentations by M. Georg Stawa, President of the CEPEJ, and Ms Karoline Edtstadler, member of the cabinet of the minister of justice of Austria

*              « The Austrian project on quality of justice »

  1. Indicators for measuring the quality of judicial services

*              Discussion on the document prepared by Fabio Bartolomeo, member of CEPEJ-GT-QUAL (Italy)


Mesurer la qualité des services judiciaires


Anglais seulement

  1. Driving changes towards e-justice ; preparation of guidelines

*              Discussion on the document prepared par M. Harold Epineuse, expert scientifique (France)


Driving changes towards e-justice ; preparation of guidelines


7.     Actions to improve the functioning of justice and relieve judicial systems

*       Discussion on the study prepared by M. Francesco De Santis (Italie), scientific expert


Relieve judicial systems


  1. Review of the court satisfaction surveys carried out so far which applied the methodology of the Handbook on conducting satisfaction surveys for court users (CEPEJ(2010)1); difficulties, lessons learnt and – based on this analysis – possible updating of the Handbook

a.         Exchange of views with Mr Martial Pasquier, Vice-President of the Faculity of law, criminal sciences and public administration, University of Lausanne (Switzerland)

  1. Preliminary exchange on possible subjects of work for CEPEJ-GT-QUAL

a.         Sharing the knowledge between the judiciary;

b.         Communication with the media and the public

  1. Other issues


Rapport de la 18ème réunion du GT-QUAL


Rapport abrégé de la 26ème réunion plénière de la CEPEJ



Strasbourg, 25 février 2016




15 – 16 March 2016

Liste of participants


Joao ARSENIO DE OLIVEIRA, Head of Department, international Affairs Department, Directorate-General for Justice Policy - Ministry of Justice, Portugal

Fabio BARTOLOMEO,  Director General of the Office of Statistics, Ministry of Justice, Italy

Anke EILERS, Judge, Oberlandesgericht Köln, Germany

Nikolina MIŠKOVIĆ, Judge, Commercial Court in Rijeka, Croatia, apologised / excusée

François PAYCHÈRE, Magistrat à la Cour des Comptes, Switzerland, (Chair of the GT-QUAL / Président du GT-QUAL)

Ioannis SYMEONIDIS, Judge, Court of Appeal, Professor at the Law School, Greece

Liljana KACI, Deputy Member CEPEJ-GT-QUAL, Inspector, Legal Analysis Study, Ministry of Justice, Albania

Georg STAWA, (President of the CEPEJ /Président de la CEPEJ) Head of Department Pr 8, Projects, Strategy and Innovation, Federal Ministry of Justice, Austria



Gilles ACCOMANDO, Président du Tribunal de Grande Instance d’Avignon, France

Francesco DE SANTIS, Avocat, Chercheur en droit procédural civil à la Faculté de Droit de l’Université de Naples « Federico II », Italie

Harold EPINEUSE, Chargé de mission à l’Institut des Hautes Etudes sur la justice, France

Yinka TEMPELMAN, Quality Manager of the Dutch Council for the judiciary,  The Netherlands, Apologised / excusée



Karoline EDTSTADLER, Austrian Ministry of Justice, Austria




Simone CUOMO, Senior Legal Advisor / Conseiller juridique senior, CCBE, Conseil des barreaux européens – Les avocats européens pour le droit et la justice / Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe – European lawyers promoting law and justice, Brussels

European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ) / RESEAU EUROPEEN DES CONSEILS DE LA JUSTICE (RECJ):

Jean-Marie SISCOT, Administrator of the Belgian High Council for Justice, Member of the Working Group on Quality Management


Jean-Jacques KUSTER, Président de l’Union européenne des Greffiers de Justice, France




Leyla ZAKIROVA, Senior adviser, Ministry of Justice

Khagani TAGHIYEV, Member, Judicial Legal Council

Aladdin JAFAROV, Chairman, Baku City Yasamal District Court

Mubariz AKBAROV, Chairman, Sheki Court of Appeal

Saadat BEKTASHI, Chairwoman Sumgayit Court of Appeal



Mongi CHALGHOUM, Président du tribunal de première instance de Zaghouan 

Fatma MKAOUAR, Présidente du tribunal de première instance de Nabeul

Abdelhafidh TAYOUBI, Président du tribunal de première instance de Sidi Bouzid



Muntaser AL-MASRI, Legal Researcher, Ministry of Justice



Registry of the European Court of Human Rights

Paola TONARELLI LACORE,Head of Division, Tel +33 3 88 41 35 98, e-mail:


DGI - Human Rights and Rule of Law, Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

DGI - Droits de l’Homme et Etat de droit, Service de l’exécution des arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme

Corinne AMAT, Head of Division, Tel: +33 3 88 41 23 66, e-mail:


DGI - Human Rights and Rule of Law, Division for the independence and efficiency of justice /

DGI - Droits de l’Homme et Etat de droit, Division pour l’indépendance et l’efficacité de la justice

Fax: +33 3 88 41 37 43 - E-mail:

Stéphane LEYENBERGER, Head of Division, Executive Secretary of the CEPEJ / Chef de la Division, Secrétaire exécutif de la CEPEJ, Tel: + 33 3 88 41 34 12, e-mail:

Clementina BARBARO, Secretary/Secrétaire of CEPEJ-GT-QUAL Tél: +33 3 90 21 55 04, e-mail :

Leonid ANTOHI, Project Manager/Manager de programme, Tel: +33 (0)3 90 21 49 65, e-mail:

Yannick MENECEUR, Special Advisor to the Secretariat of the CEPEJ / Conseiller spécial auprès du Secrétariat de la CEPEJ, Tél : +33 (0)3 90 21 53 59, e-mail :

Jean-Pierre GEILLER, Administration and Finances / Administration et finances, Tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 22 27, e-mail :

Annette SATTEL, Administration and Networks/Administration et réseaux, Tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 39 04, e-mail:

Emily WALKER, Assistant / Assistante, Tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 48 39, e-mail:



Mehriban ALIYEVA