Strasbourg, 4 June 2014





15th meeting, 3-4 April 2014


Report drafted by the Secretariat

Directorate General I – Human Rights and Rule of Law



1.      The Working Group on the Quality of Justice (CEPEJ-GT-QUAL) of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) held its 15th meeting at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg on 3 and 4 April 2014.

2.      The Working Group appointed François PAYCHERE (Switzerland) to chair the group.  He would preside over its work for the next two years.

3.      The Chair welcomed the Moroccan and Tunisian delegations, who had come for the first time to witness the current work of the Working Group on the Quality of Justice.

4.      The agenda and the list of participants appear respectively in Appendices I and II to this report.


5.      The Chair welcomed Ioannis SYMEONIDIS (Greece), judge in the Court of Appeal and Professor at the Law School, University of Thessaloniki, and Anke EILERS (Germany), judge in Cologne Court of Appeal, as new members of the working group.

6.      The Secretariat announced that the CEPEJ had in March 2014 prepared a study on the functioning of judicial systems in the EU member states for the European Commission.  The European Commission had then used the study as the basis for preparing the EU Justice Scoreboard.  The Secretariat also reported on the preparation of the evaluation report on European judicial systems, which was due to be published in September 2014.  Thorough checks on the quality of the data were being carried out, and the work would be finalised in time for the CEPEJ’s plenary meeting in Baku in July 2014.

7.      The Secretariat reported on the co-operation activities designed to disseminate the CEPEJ’s tools more widely and share its expertise with the beneficiary states.

8.      In connection with these programmes, the Secretariat referred to the activities developed under the neighbourhood policy with Mediterranean countries.  Projects were under way in Morocco, Tunisia and Jordan.  The aim was to evaluate the functioning of the judicial systems and establish co-operation with pilot courts so as to propose guidelines for reforms with a view to improving the efficiency and quality of the systems, based on the CEPEJ’s tools (including the SATURN tools and those developed through the CEPEJ-GT-QUAL).  The group warmly thanked Gilles ACCOMANDO (France) for organising a study visit to Avignon Regional Court (31 March and 1 April 2014) by a delegation of judges and officials from Tunis Court of First Instance.

9.      In the case of the co-operation programme with Jordan, after an initial phase of work with the Jordanian ministry and courts, the project was now in a difficult phase, but it was hoped that more advanced co-operation would be started in the coming weeks.  Lastly, co-operation projects were under way with various Council of Europe member states: in particular, it was planned to start a new co-operation programme with Albania and begin negotiations with a view to continuing the projects with Turkey and the Eastern Partnership countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Republic of Moldova and Ukraine).

10.    Ioannis SYMEONIDIS thanked the GT-QUAL members for their welcome.  He believed that the quality of justice should have a key role in the work of the CEPEJ and national policies concerning the administration of justice.  This need was all the more pressing in a period of economic crisis like at present, in which states’ efforts were mostly geared towards making justice more efficient.  He proposed that the indicators in the CEPEJ’s checklist for promoting the quality of justice and the courts be explained in greater detail and that it be promoted more widely.

11.    John STACEY (United Kingdom) reported on the peer evaluation visit to Israel, which, as an observer at the CEPEJ, would take part in the evaluation cycle of European judicial systems for the first time in 2014.  The purpose of the visit to Jerusalem (on 23 and 24 March 2014) had been to visit judicial institutions and discuss the statistical data received by the CEPEJ in reply to the evaluation scheme.

12.    Joao ARSENIO DE OLIVEIRA (Portugal) reported on the progress of the co-operation programme with Morocco.  Two training sessions on the use of the CEPEJ tools on judicial statistics, reasonable timeframes and quality indicators had been held respectively in Marrakesh and Rabat for Moroccan trainers in November 2013.  Following this training, a pilot activity had been carried out in Casablanca as part of a satisfaction survey in Casablanca Court.  In 2014, a Moroccan private agency was due to be employed to carry forward the satisfaction surveys.  Lastly, between December 2013 and February 2014, several exchanges of views had been held between a delegation of experts from the CEPEJ, the CCJE and the Venice Commission and representatives of the Moroccan Ministry of Justice and Freedoms concerning two draft institutional acts on the High Council of Justice and the Status of Judges and European reference standards.  The outcomes of these exchanges of views would be presented in a report to the Moroccan Parliament at the time of the final approval of the above-mentioned acts, which was scheduled for 2014.  The CEPEJ’s work had been greatly appreciated.

13.    François PAYCHERE said that he had taken part in Bern in a meeting on the subject of the management of justice in Switzerland, part of which had dealt with quality and which had been attended by several dozen doctoral students.  He proposed that they be invited to the CEPEJ-GT-QUAL’s next meeting in September 2014.

14.    Mathieu CHARDON (UIHJ) referred to his visit to Asia, where a UIHJ delegation had met representatives of the justice ministries from nine ASEAN countries.  They had taken the opportunity to present the CEPEJ guidelines on the implementation of the Council of Europe recommendation on enforcement.


15.    At the 14th meeting on 19 and 20 September, the GT-QUAL members had instructed Gilles ACCOMANDO and Michel PERCHEPIED (France) to prepare draft guidelines on the organisation and accessibility of court premises.

16.    The two experts presented the draft guidelines which had been drawn up on the basis of the exchange of views with the members of the group at the previous meeting and analysis of the replies to the questionnaire which had been sent to the pilot courts beforehand.  The document was divided into six main sections: the real-estate policy for court premises, the criteria for choosing between construction and renovation, taking the specific judicial features into account, construction of new premises, making provision for possible expansion of the building at the design stage and, lastly, renovation.

17.    The group thanked Gilles ACCOMANDO and Michel PERCHEPIED for their work and made a series of comments about the subjects covered in the draft guidelines.

18.    Several experts underlined the need to establish an explicit and more visible link between the guidelines and reform of judicial maps.  By way of example, such reforms could lead to empty court premises which had to be converted to other uses.  Making provision for expansionwas absolutely vital, in particular in the case of courts of first instance, where conversions were most frequent.  The issue of symbolism in the construction of court premises was also crucial: there had been a change here, with a move from the classical image of Greek temples to a much more modern approach, which was more user-friendly.  The aim was not to put users in awe but to put them at ease.  The experts noted that the external symbolism of court buildings was more difficult to alter than the symbolism of courtrooms, which had a significant impact on any conversion of the buildings.  They also raised the issue of single access points and ancillary services, including, in particular, places where users could pay court fees, catering facilities and facilities for children.  In overall terms, the guidelines needed to focus on the dimension of the quality of justice and the central role of users.  At the same time, judicial premises had to provide a good working environment for the various professionals.  In this connection, there was no mention of furniture in the guidelines.  Questions concerning mobile offices and the importance of considering the appropriateness of multiple-user workstations were also raised, but it was pointed out that there were major differences of view here.  Lastly, the need to consider the concept of virtual offices for judges was underlined.

19.    Following discussion, members agreed to submit any amendments to the text by email by 30 April2014.  The GT-QUAL instructed Gilles ACCOMANDO and Michel PERCHEPIED to submit a revised version of the draft text by 31 August 2014, taking account of the comments and suggestions made during the discussion, with a view to its adoption at the GT-QUAL’s next meeting.  The draft guidelines should then be ready for adoption at the CEPEJ’s plenary meeting in December 2014.


20.    At its 14th meeting, the GT-QUAL had instructed Gar Yein NG (Norway), expert, to prepare a study on “the role of experts in the quality of judicial systems” with a view to drafting relevant guidelines.

21.    The Chair thanked Gar Yein NG for her work.  Following the presentation of the study, the members made a series of comments concerning the quality of the relevant sources, the initial training of experts, the criteria for selecting experts, appointment procedures, the relationship between expertise and the adversarial principle, the status of experts (independence and impartiality), timeframes and costs.

22.    Following the discussion, members agreed to submit any suggestions by email by 30 June 2014 and instructed Gar YEIN NG to amend the study in the light of the outcome of the discussion and the suggestions and submit a new version by 30 August 2014.

23.    The GT-QUAL also instructed Anke EILERS (Germany) to prepare guidelines concerning the role of experts in the quality of judicial systems by 30 August with a view to their adoption at the CEPEJ-GT-QUAL’s next meeting in September 2014.


24.    At the 22nd plenary meeting of the CEPEJ, members had expressed doubts about some indicators.  They had accordingly asked the three working groups to co-operate more closely and produce a joint document to be adopted at the CEPEJ’s 23rd meeting.

25.    The group considered the proposals which had been made by the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL.  The main criticism concerned the use of the indicators “appeal rate” and “proportion of appeals accepted” as criteria for evaluating the quality of judicial decisions.  In this connection, there were two problems: firstly, these criteria were based on data that were very difficult to obtain, as was demonstrated by the relatively unsatisfactory reply rate to question 102 in the CEPEJ’s scheme for evaluating European judicial systems; secondly, these criteria did not reflect the quality of decisions.  There were many causes which could lead parties to challenge decisions, they depended on the specific features of each legal system and they often were not linked to problems concerning the quality of the decisions.

26.    The experts acknowledged the complexity of obtaining satisfactory indicators for measuring the quality of justice in the 47 member states.  They agreed that the appeal rate did not in itself reflect the quality of decisions, but underlined that the factor was of some importance in the evaluation of the quality of judicial systems.  Moreover, as far as difficulties in gathering relevant data were concerned, the tool was intended to be used internally by the stakeholders and was designed to help judicial systems to collect appropriate information and analyse certain relevant aspects of the quality of their systems.

27.    Following the discussion, Fabio BARTOLOMEO agreed to propose amended indicators.  François PAYCHERE and John STACEY agreed to go over the document “Measuring and improving the quality of judicial services: Working document on CEPEJ guidelines for quality measurements” (CEPEJ-GT-QUAL(2012)2Rev4), taking account of the comments made at the meeting and those to be submitted by the SATURN Working Group.  The document would be submitted for adoption at the CEPEJ’s next plenary meeting in July 2014.


28.    At its 22nd plenary meeting on 5 and 6 December 2013, the CEPEJ had agreed to draft a Handbook on Access to Justice in Europe in co-operation with the EU Fundamental Rights Agency, and instructed the CEPEJ-GT-QUAL to supervise the work.

29.    The Secretariat indicated the purpose and the target groups of the handbook.  It was designed to raise awareness among legal practitioners (judges, lawyers, NGOs, etc) about the standards in terms of access to justice that existed at European level.

30.    The Secretariat also gave details of the timetable: the expert was to be selected in autumn 2014; the contract was to be signed and a decision on the structure of the handbook was to be taken by the end of 2014; the handbook was to be finalised by autumn 2015 so that it could be published and translated into several languages in 2016.

31.    The group agreed that the content of the handbook would be discussed at the CEPEJ-GT-QUAL’s next meeting in the presence of a representative of the Fundamental Rights Agency and instructed John STACEY to follow the work closely with the Secretariat and report back regularly to the other members of the group.


32.    John MARSTON (United Kingdom) gave a presentation briefly explaining some problems relating to the enforcement of judicial decisions.  He referred to the background to the CEPEJ guidelines for better implementation of the existing Council of Europe recommendation on enforcement and the importance of the role played by the guidelines in the area of the enforcement of judicial decisions.  However, he believed that some questions still remained open and new challenges were emerging.  For instance, there was the issue of the most effective enforcement methods and models.

33.    The Chair thanked John MARTSON for his presentation.

34.    John STACEY presented a brief document which had been submitted to the CEPEJ-GT-QUAL.  He also underlined the importance of the guidelines in determining standards for enforcement and referred to the substantial amount of work which the International Union of Judicial Officers (UIHJ) had done so as to promote and implement them.  He was, however, concerned about the instruments available to judicial officers with a view to ensuring effective enforcement of decisions.  He therefore proposed that the group look at the following two questions: a) identify existing enforcement methods; b) reconsider the powers and authority assigned to judicial officers under national legislation.  Lastly, he raised the question of the impact of the possible implementation of new enforcement powers on respect for human rights.

35.    Mathieu CHARDON (UIHJ) underlined the disparities between the various member states regarding enforcement.  In his view, it was therefore very difficult to obtain an overall picture of the profession.  The UIHJ’s goal was not to impose a model but to identify the best practices and disseminate them among the various countries.  In this connection, the UIHJ had always promoted the CEPEJ guidelines.  Lastly, he presented three UIHJ activities relating to the guidelines on enforcement: the UIHJ questionnaire on the profession of judicial officer and enforcement measures; projects involving research and the identification of best practices in order to propose reference tools, models and standards (STOBRA projects); a report on the effectiveness of enforcement.

36.    Following the discussion, the UIHJ agreed to give CEPEJ members access to its above questionnaire and to prepare a document on the main problems relating to enforcement for the next meeting of the CEPEJ-GT-QUAL.  The group thanked the UIHJ for its willingness to co-operate and agreed that the next meeting would consider these elements in assessing whether to conduct subsequent activities on the matter.


37.    At its 13th meeting on 11 and 12 April 2013, the CPEJ-GT-QUAL had considered the “Comparative study of the reforms of the judicial maps in Europe” prepared by Sciences Po Strasbourg Consulting.  Some experts had indicated that updates were necessary.  The CEPEJ-GT-QUAL had asked them to submit the relevant updates by 30 September 2013.

38.    The group analysed the proposed amendments concerning Denmark and the update documents concerning the reforms in Portugal and Croatia.

39.    The CPEJ-GT-QUAL agreed to publish the study with the amendments proposed and documents to be added as a working document on the CEPEJ website.


40.    Fabio BARTOLOMEO (Italy) said that it was not currently possible to assess the practical implementation of the satisfaction surveys conducted among court users in the member states.  In order to make up for this lack of information, he proposed listing all the surveys carried out on the basis of the CEPEJ methodology.

41.    The group thanked Fabio BARTOLOMEO for the proposal and instructed him to prepare as quickly as possible a document for collecting all the relevant data.  That document would be sent to CEPEJ members every year.


42.    Avner AZOULAY (France) presented the PERSEE software package.  It was a tool for helping with the drafting of judicial decisions.  During a practical demonstration, it was explained that the application made it possible to draft judicial decisions quickly – even during or at the end of hearings – on the basis of structured templates and taking account of the specific features of the various proceedings, using both computers and tablets.  The tool was particularly relevant for repetitive cases, the aim being to make significant time savings.  The software included databases of domestic legislation and case-law and would shortly be extended to include the European equivalents.

43.    The members thanked Avner AZOULAY for his interesting presentation and expressed an interest in possibly conducting a more in-depth study into the impact of this type of software on the work of judges and the quality of the decisions produced in the course of the GT-QUAL’s forthcoming activities.


44.    John STACEY and Fabio BARTOLOMEO gave a brief presentation of the MITRE Corporation, a non-profit organisation sponsored inter alia by the Administrative Office of the US Courts, which provided state authorities with objective assessments of the technical challenges in the judicial system, including available and emerging technologies.  The organisation wished to establish co-operation with the CEPEJ in order to demonstrate the potential of its technological tools and test them using CEPEJ data.

45.    The CEPEJ-GT-QUAL thanked the experts for the presentation and asked Fabio BARTOLOMEO to keep in touch with the organisation to see whether a meeting with officials from it should be held at one of the GT-QUAL’s forthcoming meetings.


Agenda / Ordre du jour

1.            Adoption of the agenda / Adoption de l’ordre du jour

2.            Appointement of the Chair of the GT-QUAL / Désignation du Président du GT-QUAL

3.            Information by the Chairman and the Secretariat / Information du Président et du Secrétariat

4.            Guidelines on the organisation and accessibility of court premises / Lignes directrices sur l’organisation et l’accessibilité des bâtiments (tribunaux)

·         Examination of the guidelines on the organisation and accessibility of court premises prepared by the scientific experts Gilles ACCOMANDO and Michel PERCHEPIED (France) / Examen des Lignes directrices sur l’organisation et l’accessibilité des bâtiments (tribunaux) préparées par les experts scientifiques Gilles ACCOMANDO et Michel PERCHEPIED (France)

5.            The role of experts in the quality of judicial systems / Le rôle des experts dans la qualité du système judiciaire

·         Examination of the replies by the pilot courts to the questionnaire and the study on the role of experts in the quality of judicial systems prepared by the scientific expert  Gar Yein NG (Norway) / Examen des réponses des tribunaux-référents au questionnaire et de l’étude sur le rôle des experts dans la qualité du système judiciaire préparée par l’expert scientifique,  Gar Yein NG (Norvège)

·         Preparation of draft Guidelines / Préparation d’un projet de Lignes directrices

6.            Indicators for measuring the quality of justice / Indicateurs pour mesurer la qualité de la justice

·           Examination of the comments of the CEPEJ members / Examen des commentaires des membres de la CEPEJ

·           Follow up of the discussion on the draft document / Suivi de la discussion du projet de document

7.            Cooperation with the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) on the « Handbook on access to justice in Europe » /  Coopération avec l’Agence des droits fondamentaux de l’UE sur le « Manuel sur l’accès à la justice en Europe »

·         Implementation of the cooperation and, in particular, choice of the experts and preliminary discussion  on the structure of the handbook / Mise en œuvre de la coopération et, notamment, choix des experts et discussion sur la structure du Manuel

8.            Promoting the Guidelines for a better implementation of the existing Council of Europe’s recommandation on enforcement/ Promotion des Lignes directrices pour une meilleure mise en œuvre de la Recommandation existante du Conseil de l’Europe sur l’exécution

·         Exchange of views with John MARSTON, scientific expert (United Kingdom) / Echange de vues avec John MARSTON, expert scientifique (Royaume Uni)

9.            Update and publication of « Comparative study of the reforms of the judicial maps in Europe » / Mise à jour et publication de « l’Etude comparée des réformes des cartes judiciaires en Europe »

·         Examination of the updates of the study / Examen des mises à jour de l’étude

·         Discussion on the publication of the study / Discussion quant à la publication de l’étude

10.          Court coaching on satisfaction surveys  / Sessions de formation des tribunaux aux enquêtes de satisfaction

·       Information on ongoing court coaching activities / Information sur les activités de formation des tribunaux en cours

·       How to forster the coaching programme? / Comment renforcer le programme de formation?

11.  Presentation of the project “Aida Correx” / Présentation du projet “Aida Correx”

·         Presentation of the project by Avner AZOULAY (judicial decisions writing tool) / Présentation du projet par Avner AZOULAY (outil d’aide à la rédaction de décisions judiciaires)

12.          Other business / Divers


List of participants / Liste des participants


Joao ARSENIO DE OLIVEIRA, Head of Department, international Affairs Department, Directorate-General for Justice Policy - Ministry of Justice, Av. D. Joao II, n° 1.08.01 E, Torre H, Pisos 2/3, 1990-097 Lisbon, PORTUGAL, Tel: + 351 21 792 40 30, Fax: + 351 21 792 40 90, e-mail: jaoliveira@dgpj.mj.pt

Fabio BARTOLOMEO,  Directeur Général du Bureau des Statistiques, Ministère de la Justice, Via Arenula 70, 00100 Rome, ITALIE, Tel: + 39 06 6885 22 78, Fax: + 39 06 68 85 28 39, e-mail: fabio.bartolomeo@giustizia.it

Anke EILERS, Judge, Oberlandesgericht Köln, Reichenspergerplatz 1, D-50670 Köln, GERMANY, Tel: +49 221 7711-0 (734 or 358), e-mail: anke.eilers@olg-koeln.nrw.de

Nikolina MIŠKOVIĆ, Judge, Commercial Court in Rijeka, Antuna Brubnjaka 6 Ika, 51414, Ičići, CROATIA Tel: +385 51 660 204, +385 98 369 796, e-mail: nikolina.miskovic@tsri.pravosudje.hr

François PAYCHÈRE, Président de la Cour des Comptes, Case postale 3159, CH-1211 Genève 3, SUISSE, Tel: + 41 22 388 77 91, e-mail : francois.paychère@cdc.ge.ch (Chair of the GT-QUAL / Président du GT-QUAL)

John STACEY, Government Advisor for the Efficiency and Quality of Justice, 57 Lynford Way, Rushden, Northants, NN109LZ, UNITED KINGDOM, e-mai: johnstacey.cepej@btinternet.com

(Chair of the CEPEJ / Président de la CEPEJ)

Ioannis SYMEONIDIS, Judge, Court of Appeal, , Professor at the Law School, University of Thessaloniki, 29, N.Foka, CP 546 21, Thessalonique, GRECE, Tel: +, e-mail : isy@law.auth.gr


Gilles ACCOMANDO, Président du tribunal de Grande Instance d’Avignon,  2, Boulevard Limbert, 84078 Avignon Cedex 9, FRANCE, Tel: + 04 32 74 76 10, e-mail: gilles.accomando@justice.fr

Avner AZOULAY, Magistrat, Tribunal de Grande Instance de Saverne, 7 rue du tribunal 67770 Saverne, France, Tél : +33 (0) 6 58 20 79 69, e-mail : avner.azoulay@justice.fr

Gar Yein NG, OCDE Expert, 29 Lenton Avenue, The Park, Nottingham, GB – NG7 1 DX, ROYAUME-UNI, e-mail: garyeinng@gmail.com

Michel PERCHEPIED, Ingénieur en Chef des Travaux Publics de l’Etat, Chef du Département Immobilier de Toulouse, Ministère de la Justice – Plateforme Interrégionale Sud, Parc d’Activité Thibaud, 2 impasse Boudeville, Immeuble Aurélien 2, 31000 Toulouse, FRANCE, Tel: 05 62 20 61 01, 06 77 07 57 65, e-mail: Michel.Perchepied@justice.gouv.fr

Yinka TEMPELMAN, Quality Manager of the Dutch Council for the judiciary,  Postbus 90613, 2509 LP The Hague, THE NETHERLANDS, Tel: + 31 070 36 19 762,  e-mail: y.tempelman@rechtspraak.nl

 Apologised / Excusée

John MARSTON, Former Chairman of the High Court of Enforcement officier’s Association in England and Wales, 1st Floor, Tameway Tower, 48 Brudge Street, Walsall, Wes Midlands WS1 1JZ, UNITED KINGDOM, Tel: +44 (01922) 720 777, e-mail: john.marston@marstongroup.co.uk


Mourad AIT SAKEL Magistrat à la Direction des Affaires Civiles, Ministère de la Justice et des Libertés, Place de la Mamounia, BP 1015,Rabat, MAROC, Tél : 0537 72 02 53 / 0537 75 24 39, Fax : 0537.72.37.10,


Khdija MEJRI,  Président de Chambre à la Cour de Cassation, Adresse, CP,Ville, TUNISIE, Tél : , Fax : , e-mail:

Nadia BEN KHLIFA,  Juge de Registre Commercial, Tribunal de Première Instance de Tunis, Avenue Bab Bnet, 1019, Tunis, TUNISIE, Tél : 715 611 003, fax : 71 571 618, e-mail :

Radia BEN ISSA,  Juge Cantonal, Tribunal de Première Instance de Zaghouan, Rue Heidi Cheker, 1100 Zaghouan, TUNISIE, Tél. 72 675 254, Fax : 72 676 051, e-mail :

Mongi CHALGOUME,  Président du  Tribunal de Première Instance de Zaghouan, Rue Heidi Cheker, 1100 Zaghouan, TUNISIE, Tél. 72 675 254, Fax : 72 676 051, e-mail :



Per IBOLD,  International Relations Officer, European Commission, DG Justice – Unit 02, Square Frère Orban, 10, 1040 Brussels, BELGIUM, e-mail: per.ibold@ec.europa.eu


Rafael FERNANDEZ PITA, Director General, General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union, Justice and Home Affairs, Rue de la Loi 170, 1048 Brussels, BELGIUM, e-mail: Rafael.fernandez-pita@consilium.europa.eu


Antoine CAHEN,  Parlement européen, Commission LIBE, Rue Wiertz, RMD 4J049, 1047 Bruxelles, BELGIQUE, e-mail: antoine.cahen@europarl.europa.eu

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, e-mail: Jean-Marie.Siscot@hrj.be


Jean-Jacques KUSTER, Représentant de l’Union européenne des Greffiers de Justice (E.U.R.), 24, rue Canardière 67100 Strasbourg, France,  Tel. + 33 (0)6 83 61 78 05, e-mail: jean-jacques.kuster@wanadoo.fr

World Bank / Banque mondiale:

Klaus DECKER, Public Sector Specialist, Public Sector and Institutional Reform, Europe and Central Asia, Vice-Presidency, World Bank, Room H 4-411, Mail Stop H 4-407, 1818 H Street NW, Washington  DC 20433, USA, Tel: + 1-202 458 44 31 7, + 1 202 614-1176, Fax: +1 202 522 3091, e-mail: kdecker@worldbank.org Apologised / Excusé


Jonas GRIMHEDEN, Head of Sector Access to Justice, European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Schwarztenbergerplatz 11, VIENNA 1040, AUSTRIA, E-mail : jonas.Grimheden@fra.europa.eu

Apologised / Excusé


Jean-Raymond LEMAIRE, Expert près de la Cour d’Appel de Versailles agréé par la Cour de Cassation, Président du Comité Exécutif de l’EEEI, 92 rue Anatole France, 4ème étage, 92300 Levallois-Perret, FRANCE, Tel: +33 (0) 1 41 49 07 60, e-mail: jr.lemaire@experts-institute.eu

council of the bars and law societies of the european union (ccbe) /CONSEILS DES BARREAUX EUROPEENS (CCBE):

Simone CUOMO, Legal Advisor, Council of the Bars and Law Societies of the European Union (CCBE), Rue Joseph II, 40/8, 1000 Brussels, BELGIUM, Tel: + 32 (2) 234 65 10, Fax: + 32 (2) 234 65 11, e-mail: Cuomo@ccbe.eu

Apologised / Excusé


Mathieu CHARDON, Huissier de justice, Premier Secrétaire de l’UIHJ, 1 rue Chantreine, 78490 Montfort l’Amaury, FRANCE, Tel: 33 1 34 86 00 15, e-mail: chardon.mathieu@wanadoo.fr



DGI - Human Rights and Rule of Law

Division for the Independance 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: cepej@coe.int

Hanne JUNCHER, Head of Justice and Legal Co-operation Department / Chef du Service de la coopération judiciaire et juridique, Tél: +33 3 88 44 24 37, e-mail : hanne.juncher@coe.int

Stéphane LEYENBERGER, Acting Head of the Justice Division, Secretary of the CEPEJ / Chef de la division de la justice a.i.,Secrétaire de la CEPEJ, Tel: + 33 3 88 41 34 12, e-mail: stephane.leyenberger@coe.int

Muriel DECOT, Co-Secretary of the CEPEJ / Co-secrétaire de la CEPEJ, Tel: + 33 3 90 21 44 55, e-mail : muriel.decot@coe.int

Roberto CHENAL,  Administrator / Administrateur, Tél : +33 3 90 21 55 04, e-mail : roberto.chenal@coe.int

Yannick MENECEUR, Conseiller Spécial, Tél : +33 3 90 53 59, e-mail : yannick.meneceur@coe.int

Jean-Pierre GEILLER, Documentation, Tel : + 33 3 88 41 22 27, e-mail : jean-pierre.geiller@coe.int

Annette SATTEL, Administration et réseaux, Tel: + 33 3 88 41 39 04, e-mail: annette.sattel@coe.int

Marie-José SCHUTZ, Assistant / Assistante, Tel : + 33 3 88 41 34 86, e-mail: marie-jose.schutz@coe.int

Interpreters / Interprètes



Jean-Jacques PEUDSSAUD