Strasbourg, 3 December 2012
CEPEJ-GT-EVAL(2012)7
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
WORKING GROUP ON THE EVALUATION OF JUDICIAL SYSTEMS
(CEPEJ-GT-EVAL)
21st meeting, 15-16 November 2012
MEETING REPORT
Report prepared by the Secretariat
Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The Working Group on the evaluation of judicial systems (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL) of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) held its 21st meeting on 15-16 November 2012 in Strasbourg, with Jean-Paul JEAN (France) in the chair.
2. The agenda appears in Appendix I and the list of participants in Appendix II to this report.
II. INFORMATION BY THE SECRETARIAT AND THE GT-EVAL MEMBERS.
3. Beata Gruszczynska informs the Group about her participation to the Conference of the European Society of Criminology held in Bilbao (Spain) on the 12-15 of September where she presented the CEPEJ indicators regarding prosecutors. She also presented the CEPEJ’s tools in matter of judicial aid during a conference for the Polish presidency of the European Union. B. Gruszczynska underlined the interest of the participants of those conferences in the CEPEJ works and tools.
4. The Secretariat asked the experts to inform it about every presentations, conferences they could attend regarding the CEPEJ in order to publish them on its website.
III. EVALUATION CYCLES OF JUDICIAL SYSTEMS
i. Assessment of the impact of the CEPEJ report “European judicial system – Edition 2012”
5. The members of the Group briefly presented the impact of the report in their countries. A wide echo was given to the report in many newspapers. They underlined the importance of the report for a better comprehension of judicial systems, especially in a European and International perspective.
6. Frans Van der DOELEN organised a meeting at the Ministry of Justice (with 100 persons) to present the CEPEJ work. The issues relating to legal aid have been addressed, sometimes considered as too expensive in a period of fiscal restraint, as well as issues relating to judicial fees.
7. Jean-Paul JEAN participated to a meeting of the Conseil Supérieur de la Magistrature (CSM), where the gender issues in the judiciary was discussed. He was also interviewed by the Finances Commission of the National Assembly (Commission des finances de l’Assemblée Nationale).
8. Munira DOSSAJI stated that explanatory notes have been prepared for the Ministry of Justice of the United Kingdom.
9. Georg STAWA stated that the topic of court fees collected by the judicial system has been discussed in Austria. The report is often quoted in parliamentary debates and by the Minister of Justice to underline the good performances of the Austrian judiciary.
10. The Working Group CEPEJ-GT-EVAL proposes to formulate a recommendation during the plenary meeting of the CEPEJ in order to encourage CEPEJ members to organise a presentation of the report on the functioning of judicial systems into their Ministry.
11. The impact of the report in the context of negotiations for the accession to the European Union (in particular Croatia) or in the work of the International Monetary Fund in matter of management of public finances is also emphasised.
12. Regarding the general impact of the report in the member states, Adis HODZIC underlined that the attention of policy makers is often focused on some indicators, not always wisely used, but he added that the report can assist the policy makers giving them an international vision of the judicial systems.
13. The OECD representative, Natalia NOLAN FLECHA shared the expertise of the OECD regarding the publication and the use of data. The OECD focuses on 50 indicators which are studied and analysed in its report and publishes explanations about the use of data. In addition, in order to avoid misuse of the indicators, the OECD produces an explanation on how the data should not be used.
ii. Debriefing on the process implemented since 2002
14. The Group assessed the successive evaluation exercises and expressed their willingness to implement a permanent statistical system. All members agreed that the appointment of a permanent statistician is an essential element to the successful continuation of the evaluation process and to the production of a quality and detailed report. They expressed the wish that appropriate political decisions will be taken rapidly, in the line of the support given by many Ministers of Justice in Vienna, on the 20th of September and the Ministers’ Deputies during the exchange of views with the President on the 10th of October 2012.
15. The Group expressed their point of view regarding the possibility to rationalise the content of the report, including reducing the number of tables and graphs that could be made available to states. One must distinguish between the provisions of the database itself and the presentation of selected data.
16. It is also proposed to develop in the future a guide to better interpret the CEPEJ data. Emphasis should also be placed on comparable countries in the analysis.
iii. Continuation of the process
a. amendment of the Evaluation Scheme
17. The Group agreed on the fact that numbering of questions in the future questionnaire should remain the same, in order to facilitate the work of the national correspondents.
18. Based on the notes and propositions formulated by many national correspondents, especially the Russian correspondent, the Group proposed several adaptations to the questionnaire and to the explicative note contained in the documents CEPEJ(2012)12 and 13. These documents will be submitted to the plenary meeting on the 7th of December 2012 for adoption. It is suggested that they will be supplemented, by written procedure to the CEPEJ members, in order to consider further proposals from the exercise of cooperation with the European Union.
b. launching of the 2012 - 20104 cycle
19. The Secretariat proposed to establish a definitive version of the questionnaire by mid-March 2013. The electronic questionnaire could be open to national correspondents by May 2012, with a deadline on 31 December 2013 to respond.
c. towards a permanent Observatory of justice in Europe
20. The members of the Working Group expressed repeatedly the importance of appointing a permanent statistician into the CEPEJ in order to produce a quality report and to become a permanent Observatory of Justice in Europe.
21. Frans Van der DOELEN presented an initiative formulated by Fabio BARTOLOMEO regarding the creation of an index on performance indicators. Frans Van der DOELEN was inspired by this initiative during a presentation he made in the Netherlands for the European Day of Justice 2012. From a table of 28 indicators: the Judicial Efficiency Score (JES), it is possible to rank the countries. Nevertheless, he insisted on the fact that the study only focuses on some aspects such as the costs, the rapidity of procedures. The necessity is to get as much data as possible in order to compare the States in a meaningful way.
22. Following this presentation, the Chairman proposed that the working group takes note of this willingness to produce an index on the performance of courts, to counterbalance with indicators in matter of quality of justice. The GT-EVAL emphasised the need to provide two references, both for efficiency and quality, one cannot be conceived without the other one. Those references could be tested on a group of comparable countries.
23. It is proposed that the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL works with the CEPEJ-GT-QUAL (and the steering group of the SATURN Centre) on the development of those standards. A working day in common will be organised in 2013.
IV. REPORT FOR THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION ON THE IMPACT OF THE FUNCTIONING OF JUDICIAL SYSTEMS ON THE ECONOMY
24. The CEPEJ-GT-EVAL exchanged with Luisella PAVA-WOOLFE, Ambassador of the European Union at the Council of Europe, on the report prepared by the experts of the CEPEJ for the European Commission on the impact of the functioning of justice on the economy of the EU States.
25. The Secretariat presents the context in which this first report has been prepared as well as the experts responsible for its preparation, appointed by the CEPEJ Bureau. Many working meeting took place with the DG Justice of the European Commission. It stressed in particular the constraints imposed to the experts of the CEPEJ on theScoreboard that the DG Justice of the European Commission wanted to install during the process, only partially corresponding to the information available to the CEPEJ or that it was possible to obtain on an ad hoc manner while remaining faithful to the scientific methodology of the CEPEJ, guaranteeing the credibility of the process and the CEPEJ as such. It recalled that the CEPEJ remains an intergovernmental body, required to work in transparency with the member states of the Council of Europe. It finally stressed the time constraint for this exercise. Despite these constraints, a quality report was presented to the DG Justice of the European Commission, on the 7th of November, within the time allowed.
26. It explained the structure and the content of the report.
27. The Chairman of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL emphasised the necessity not to simplify on an extreme manner, in order to not present an exercise scientifically questionable.
28. The Ambassador PAVAN-WOOLFE congratulated the experts of the CEPEJ for their work which constitutes an excellent working basis for the European Union. She stressed that the national judge is essential to the European construction because it is also responsible for enforcing European Union law. The Ambassador stated that she took note and understood the constraints of the CEPEJ. She highlighted the differences of point of view and objectives between the Council of Europe and the European Union (including the economic aspect of justice which is essential for the European Union) while expressing the willingness of the European Commission to continue the cooperation with the CEPEJ. She recalled that the Vice-President of the European Commission, Agnès Reding, recently asked for a regular assessment of the judicial systems of the member States of the EU on the basis of a Scoreboard.
29. The CEPEJ-GT-EVAL repeated its interest in pursuing cooperation with the European Union in this field, in accordance with the constraints of the CEPEJ – and the Council of Europe – and in respect of its methodology which is today widely recognised judicially and scientifically.
30. The Chairman explained to the Ambassador the possibility for the European Commission to propose adaptations to the CEPEJ questionnaire, in particular to integrate the notion of economic justice.
V. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PILOT PEER EVALAUTION COOPERATION PROCESS
31. The members of the Group proposed to work with Northern Ireland, Scotland and England and Wales. They invited Munira DOSSAJI to discuss with the authorities concerned.
32. They also suggested implementing the peer review in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. The possibility to work with Bulgaria and Romania has also been discussed.
VI. Examination of the draft report prepared by the CCBE on the role of lawyers in judicial proceedings
33. The Secretariat recalled that according to data from the CEPEJ evaluation report, we can see a link between the number of lawyers and the lengths of proceedings, in particular in Southern Europe. A draft report was commissioned by the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE) at the end of 2008 in order to analyse the data and consider if it was possible to explain or not this observation and the correlation. This report has been prepared at the initiative of the CCBE by the Institute for European Studies of the Université Libre de Bruxelles (Isabelle Andoulsi) and submitted to the Secretariat in 2012.
34. The Chairman proposed that the members of the Group read the report carefully and send background information to the Secretariat. He also proposed that the CCBE presents the report during the plenary meeting of the CEPEJ on 6-7 December 2012 and during the next meeting of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL. This report could be translated and made available on the website of the CEPEJ as working document.
VII. Specific co-operation with non CoE member states
i. Co-operation with OECD
35. Natalia NOLAN FLECHA, representative of the OECD, presented the approach adopted by the OECD based on the correlation between inputs and outputs. She emphasised the reluctances of the OECD on distinguishing measures of quality and measures of efficiency of justice. Therefore, the OECD has chosen to focus on some indicators such as the disposition time, e-justice or the confidence of citizens in the police.
36. Regarding cooperation with non member States of the Council of Europe but members of the OECD, Natalia NOLAN FLECHA announced that South Korea, Mexico and Japan have shown an interest in the evaluation exercise of the CEPEJ. To this end, South Korea has already filled the form of the CEPEJ. The OECD is expecting information from Mexico by summer 2013.
37. The members of the Group agreed on the need to take decisions about the modalities of the future cooperation between the CEPEJ and non member States of the Council of Europe. The GT-EVAL entrusted the Secretariat to approach the competent authorities of the Council of Europe for this purpose. The non member States of the Council of Europe willing to work with the CEPEJ could be invited to apply for observer status at the CEPEJ, in advance (South Korea). A voluntary contribution may be requested from those states to be integrated into the evaluation process of the CEPEJ.
38. Natalia NOLAN FLECHA invited the members of the Group to different fora organised by the OECD. The Chairman of the GT-EVAL asked to Natalia NOLAN FLECHA to send to the Working Group the OECD works on similar issues addressed by the CEPEJ.
ii. Other co-operation
VIII. CEPEJ co-operation programmes
i. Co-operation programmes with Morocco, Tunisia and Jordan
39. The Secretariat presented the current state of the cooperation programmes. Regarding Morocco and Tunisia, the CEPEJ will prepare an evaluation on the functioning of the judicial systems in order to formulate concrete recommendations to the national authorities.
40. Regarding the implementation of the cooperation programmes, the CEPEJ first sent an evaluation scheme to the states. Regarding Morocco, some members of the Secretariat went on site to consolidate the data they had previously received. A second site visit has already taken place in Morocco in order to complete the information. Three pilot courts have been visited. The report for this country should be finalised for December so it will be given to the Moroccan authorities at the beginning of January 2013.
41. The programme in Tunisia is less advanced. A first visit will take place from 19 November to 21 November 2012. Some interviews at the Ministry of Justice and in other judicial authorities have been organised in order to strengthen the data sent by the Tunisian authorities to the CEPEJ.
42. Regarding Jordan, works have not started yet. The implementation of cooperation activities are under discussions between the European Commission and the Jordanian authorities.
ii. Efficiency of justice in the countries of the Eastern Partnership
43. The Eastern Partnership Programme (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Republic of Moldova, and Ukraine) is underway with activities relating to the independency of justice, the organisation of the Bar Association and courts management.
44. A report have been prepared on the efficiency of justice in those countries, from the information collected during the CEPEJ evaluation process, with the assistance of CEPEJ-GT-EVAL experts (Georg STAWA, Frans VAN DER DOELEN et Adis HODZIC). This report has been discussed with the national authorities. The next step consists in returning in these states to discuss the report with the judicial actors themselves.
45. Georg STAWA welcomed the work done for this programme and the opportunity to apply the CEPEJ methodology to a limited number of states. Applying the CEPEJ method at a national scale demonstrates the efficiency of the methodology.
46. Georg STAWA and Adis HODZIC presented their work. They mainly focused on the flow of cases, productivity and efficiency. The study made by the experts shows that some countries have more funding that they need whereas some others have an insufficient funding compared to their needs. It is the same for the number of judges: some courts have more judges than they would need. The number of judges and the budget should reflect the workload. The cost-effectiveness relation is crucial to improve the quantitative management of the judicial system.
47. In lights of this work, the Chairman noted that the methods and statistics become increasingly sophisticated. He questioned the need to propose more precise indicators in the future but expressed some reservations about the limitations that might pose to users.
IX. 10th anniversary of CEPEJ
48. The Secretariat informed the members of the Working Group on the proceeding of the 10th anniversary celebration during the plenary meeting, on the 6th of December 2012 in Strasbourg. Jean-Paul Jean will have to explain the concrete use that policy makers can do of the report on the evaluation of justice.
Appendix I
AGENDA / ORDRE DU JOUR
1. Adoption of the agenda / Adoption de l’ordre du jour
2. Information by the Secretariat and the GT-EVAL members / Information du Secrétariat et des membres du GT-EVAL
3. Evaluation cycles of judicial systems / Cycles d’évaluation des systèmes judiciaires
i. Assessment of the impact of the CEPEJ report “European judicial system – Edition 2012” / Evaluation de l’impact du rapport “Systèmes judiciaires européens – Edition 2012”
ii. Debriefing on the process implemented since 2002 / Bilan du processus mis en oeuvre depuis 2002
iii. Continuation of the process / Poursuite du processus:
a. amendement of the Evaluation Scheme / amendement de la Grille d’évaluation
b. complementary studies / études complémentaires
c. launching of the 2012 - 2014 cycle / lancement du cycle 2012 – 2014
d. towards a permanent Observatory of justice in Europe / vers un Observatoire
permanent de la justice en Europe
4. Report for the European Commission on the impact of the functioning of judicial systems on the economy /
Rapport pour la Commission européenne sur l'impact du fonctionnement de la justice sur l'économie
i. Situation of the report prepared by the CEPEJ’s experts / Situation du rapport préparé par les experts de la CEPEJ
ii. Modalities for possible further co-operation with the European Commission / Modalités pour la poursuite possible de la coopération avec la Commission européenne
5. Implementation of the pilot peer evaluation co-operation process /
Mise en œuvre du processus de coopération à travers une évaluation par les pairs
6. Specific co-operation with non CoE member states / Coopération spécifique avec des Etats non membres du CdE
i. Co-operation with OECD / Coopération avec l'OCDE
ii. Other co-operation / Autre coopération
7. CEPEJ co-operation programmes / Programmes de coopération de la CEPEJ
i. Co-operation programmes with Morocco, Tunisia and Jordan / Programmes de coopération avec le Maroc, la Tunisie et la Jordanie
ii. Efficiency of justice in the countries of the Eastern Partnership / Efficacité de la justice dans les pays du Partenariat pour l’Europe orientale
8. 10th anniversary of CEPEJ / 10ème anniversaire de la CEPEJ
9. Any other business / Questions diverses
Appendix II
List of Participants / Liste des participants
Experts
Beata Z. GRUSZCZYŃSKA, Institute of Justice, Ministry of Justice, WARSAW, POLAND
Ramin GURBANOV, Chief of reforms division, General department of organisation and supervision,
Co-ordinator of Judicial Modernisation Project, Ministry of Justice, BAKU, AZERBAIJAN - Apologised / Excusé
Adis HODZIC, Senior Advisor for Statistics, Secretariat High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina, SARAJEVO, BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
Jean-Paul JEAN, Avocat général près la Cour de Cassation, Professeur associé à l’Université de Poitiers, PARIS, FRANCE (Chair of the GT-EVAL / Président du GT-EVAL)
Georg STAWA, Head of Department Pr 8, Projects, Strategy and Innovation, Federal Ministry of Justice, WIEN, AUSTRIA (Vice-President of the CEPEJ / Vice-Président de la CEPEJ)
John STACEY, Government Advisor for the Efficiency and Quality of Justice, RUSHDEN, NORTHANTS, UNITED KINGDOM
(President of the CEPEJ / Président de la CEPEJ)- Apologised / Excusé
Frans Van der DOELEN, Programme Manager of the Department of the Justice System, Ministry of Justice, THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS
Scientific experts / experts scientifiques
MuniraDossaji, Principal Operational Research Analyst , Strategy and Innovation Team, Human Rights and International Directorate, Ministry of Justice, LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM
Observers / Observateurs
European Union of Rechtspfleger / Union européenne des greffiers de justice et Rechtspfleger
Vivien WHYTE, Greffier au Tribunal de Grande Instance de Strasbourg, STRASBOURG, FRANCE
EUROPEAN UNION / UNION EUROPEENNE
Luisella PAVAN-WOOLFE, Ambassadeur, Chef de la Délégation de l’Union Européenne auprès du Conseil de l’Europe, STRASBOURG
Donatella CANDARU, Délégation de l’Union européenne auprès du Conseil de l’Europe, STRASBOURG
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION / CONSEIL DE L’UNION EUROPEENNE
Luca DE MATTEIS, Directorate General H - Unit 2 B - Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters, BRUXELLES- Apologised / Excusé
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) / ORGANISATION POUR LA COOPERATION ET LE DEVELOPPEMENT ECONOMIQUES (OCDE)
Natalia NOLAN FLECHA, Policy Analyst, Directorate of Public Governance Territorial Development, Reform of the Public Sector Division, PARIS
Secretariat
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 justiceFax: +33 (0)3 88 41 37 43
E-mail: [email protected]
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 : [email protected]
Stéphane LEYENBERGER, Secretary of the CEPEJ / Secrétaire de la CEPEJ, Tel : +33 3 88 41 34 12, e-mail: [email protected]
Artashes MELIKYAN, Administrator / Administrateur, …
Jean-Pierre GEILLER, Documentation, Tél : +33 3 88 41 22 27, e-mail : [email protected]
Annette SATTEL, Communication, Tél : +33 3 03 88 41 39 04, e-mail : [email protected]
Elisabeth HEURTEBISE, Assistant/Assistante, Tel : +33 3 88 41 35 54, Fax : +33 3 88 41 37 43, e-mail: [email protected]
Trainee / Stagiaire
Camille BONNIN
Interpreters / Interprètes
Lucie DE BURLET
Cynera JAFFREY
Jean-Jacques PEDUSSAUD