Strasbourg, 1 February 2018
CEPEJ-GT-EVAL(2017)12Rev1
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
WORKING GROUP ON THE EVALUATION OF JUDICIAL SYSTEMS
(CEPEJ-GT-EVAL)
33rd meeting
27-28 September 2017
MEETING REPORT
Document prepared by the Secretariat
Directorate General I – Human Rights and Rule of Law
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 33rd meeting on 27 and 28 September 2017 in Venice, 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.
I. INFORMATION BY THE SECRETARIAT AND MEMBERS OF THE GT-EVAL
3. The secretariat confirmed that, by way of exception, the CEPEJ plenary meeting scheduled for 7 and 8 December 2017 had been cancelled owing to the budgetary constraints facing the Council of Europe. A three-day plenary meeting of the CEPEJ would be held in spring 2018.
II. 2016 – 2018 EVALUATION CYCLE
4. The secretariat pointed out that on 8 June 2017, a new system, CEPEJ-COLLECT, had been established. This system made it possible to collect and analyse CEPEJ data for all participating states, and for Israel and Morocco, in preparation for the report entitled ‟European Judicial Systems” 2018 Edition (2016 data).
5. The timetable for preparing this next CEPEJ report was as follows:
§ June 2017: opening of the electronic questionnaire for the data collection;
§ 31 December 2017: deadline for data collection. Closure of the electronic questionnaire;
§ January 2018 – spring 2018: quality control of the data by the secretariat;
§ summer 2018: drafting of the report;
§ autumn 2018: publication of the report.
6. A discussion took place on the reoccurring problems for certain countries (in particular Armenia, Belgium, Cyprus, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Russia and Ukraine) with regard to data collection (missing data, or data lacking consistency and/or of low quality according to CEPEJ methodology). The Group considered that working sessions between the secretariat and the CEPEJ national correspondents, and possibly the members of the CEPEJ, could be proposed to these countries in order to improve their data.
7. The secretariat presented the CEPEJ-COLLECT system. This new data collection tool made it possible, when data were logged by the national correspondents, to automatically detect in the answers provided where there was too much variation in the quantitative data from one cycle to another. The Working Group decided to maintain the level of monitoring of variations at 20% while emphasising the importance of not fully automating this monitoring and the need to adapt it to the situation in individual countries.
8. It was also suggested that the alert message to flag up excessive variations in relation to previous data be issued earlier in the process, when national correspondents completed the questionnaire (the ‟save in pending” function) and not, as was currently the case, when they posted their replies (the ‟save and publish” function). It would also be very helpful for national correspondents if previous data and/or the percentage of variation could be viewed on the same page as the questionnaire when they entered data in the questionnaire. This display could, for example, take the form of a tooltip, and would obviate the need to open a new page.
9. The secretariat noted that the new system was still being set up and that improvements would be proposed, including on the basis of suggestions from members of the Working Group.
10. At its 30th meeting (29 and 30 June 2017), the CEPEJ had endorsed the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL’s proposal that the CEPEJ secretariat oversee, twice a year, the updating of the data included in CEPEJ-STAT. This update could be carried out before the Working Group’s biannual meetings. Moreover, the data collected by the CEPEJ in the context of the European Union’s Scoreboard could be published on CEPEJ-STAT. These data, however, would need to appear in dashboards separate from those currently used, as they related only to EU countries.
11. The secretariat also presented the latest developments in the CEPEJ-STAT system and, in particular, the new dashboard on gender equality and the establishment of a median for the disposition time and for incoming and pending cases in the ‟overview” dashboard, in the section on efficiency. The translation of CEPEJ-STAT into French must be carried out shortly.
12. The Working Group went on to examine the general dashboard (‟overview”) and agreed that it needed to be improved. In order to better reflect the subtleties of the CEPEJ indicators and the CEPEJ analysis on the efficiency of European justice, and to avoid any misunderstandings on the part of users, it decided to amend the following:
- regarding the efficiency indicators, use the title ‟Main CEPEJ efficiency indicators – case flow and timeframes” instead;
- avoid giving the impression that states are ranked, not even through the use of different colours, including for the variations for the clearance rate and disposition time indicators;
- explain the abbreviations CR (clearance rate) and DT (disposition time).
13. The secretariat pointed out that the topic proposed by the CEPEJ for the next thematic report was that of users of the justice system. It was nevertheless noted that unlike the specific report on the use of new information technologies in courts prepared during the previous cycle, there was no specific questionnaire for this new topic, and it was difficult, therefore, to explore it in greater depth given the data as it stood. The CEPEJ-GT-EVAL decided to only include a specific section on users of the justice system in the general report.
14. However, the Working Group decided, at the same time, to examine the issue of gender equality in the judicial system in a new section in the general report which would expand on the main issues in this regard. To that end, the Working Group proposed that some additional questions on this topic be submitted to the national correspondents.
15. Regarding the structure of the next evaluation report, the Working Group accordingly decided to:
- maintain, provided the data collected was of good quality, the same structure as in previous editions:
o Chapter 1. The evaluation process of the CEPEJ
o Chapter 2. Budgets of the judicial systems
o Chapter 3. Judicial staff and lawyers
o Chapter 4. Court organisation and court users
o Chapter 5. Efficiency and quality of the activity of courts and public prosecutors;
- include the issue of gender equality in the justice system in chapter 3;
- expand on the analysis on users of the justice system in chapter 4;
- include the main developments since the specific report published in the previous cycle on the use of information technologies in courts in the section entitled ‟Quality of the court system and court users” in chapter 4.
16. It was further agreed to maintain, in the paper version, an ‟overview” and a general report at the same time as publishing all the data and comments in CEPEJ-STAT.
17. The Working Group decided to call on experts to draft the various chapters of the next evaluation report of judicial systems which would be published in autumn 2018. The members of the Working Group undertook to submit proposals to the secretariat in writing, along with the CVs of the persons mentioned.
III. STUDY FOR THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION ON THE FUNCTIONING OF JUDICIAL SYSTEMS IN THE MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (SCOREBOARD OF JUSTICE)
18. The secretariat underlined the very good co-operation with the European Commission in the context of the last ‟CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems in the member states of the European Union”. It reported on the forthcoming changes regarding the timeframe for the next exercise and explained that the questionnaire for data collection regarding the CEPEJ study, as part of the Justice Scoreboard of the European Commission, had been opened at the same time as the questionnaire for the CEPEJ evaluation cycle.
19. The secretariat reminded the Working Group of the timetable for drafting the CEPEJ study for the purposes of the Scoreboard:
§ June 2017: opening of the electronic questionnaire on the CEPEJ study in the context of the Scoreboard:
§ 22 September 2017: closure of the data collection (instead of 30 September);
§ 15 November 2017: submission of the first part of the study (data tables) to the European Commission (instead of 1 December);
§ 31 December 2017: submission of the final study including the “country fiches”.
20. The secretariat further informed the Working Group that some technical changes had been negotiated as part of the next contract between the CEPEJ and the European Commission. The choice of questions would have to be decided each year, as well as the years to take into consideration. The comparisons would be limited to four exercises.
21. The secretariat also reported on the discussions which had been held with the European Commission in the context of the latest study concerning German data, some of which had been updated after the deadline for collecting data. The CEPEJ-GT-EVAL stressed the importance of equal treatment for all member states taking part in the exercise, in accordance with its methodology.
IV. PEER REVIEW CO-OPERATION PROCESS
a. Cyprus
22. A peer review meeting had been held in Cyprus on 30 and 31 May 2017 with the participation of Simone KREβ (Germany), Georg STAWA (Austria) and Ramin GURBANOV (Azerbaijan). It was an opportunity to establish extensive contacts with the persons involved in data collection and to work on the consistency of certain data, while identifying reasons why some data were repeatedly missing throughout the evaluation cycles.
b. Georgia
23. As a complete overhaul of the IT system was currently under way in Georgia, a peer review mission on this topic had been suggested and took place on 19 and 20 September 2017 with the participation of Jean-Paul JEAN (France), Georg STAWA (Austria) and Ramin GURBANOV (Azerbaijan). In particular, the CEPEJ experts discussed the issue of the automatic distribution of procedures to judges in electronic case management systems and made proposals for improving the efficiency of statistical data collection.
c. Upcoming peer review process and the possibility of organising working sessions with the secretariat
24. The secretariat informed the Working Group that Spain and Montenegro wished to host a peer review meeting in 2018. The secretariat would contact the CEPEJ members for those countries by the end of the year.
25. The Working Group was also informed of the proposals made to the German member and the new German national correspondent of the CEPEJ about organising a working session to improve the quality of data and avoid the recurring problems that arose every exercise. As yet, there had been no response to these proposals.
V. CEPEJ SPECIFIC STUDY ON THE LEGAL PROFESSIONS
26. The representative of the CNUE (Council of the Notariats of the European Union), Mr Geertjan Sarneel, presented the notaries’ draft contribution to the CEPEJ specific study on the legal professions. The layout was the same as that of the 2014 edition of the CEPEJ report. This draft included the CEPEJ data and examples of practices employed by European notaries.
27. Following a discussion with the Working Group and the observers, it was agreed to slightly amend the draft in order to make some notary activities mentioned in the chapter more objective and to submit it again to the Working Group prior to publication on CEPEJ-STAT. A working meeting between the secretariat and the CNUE could be organised.
28. The Working Group tasked the secretariat with correcting the insert on the first page (caveat about the methodology) in order to clarify the provenance of the data contained in the draft.
29. The representatives of the UIHJ (International Union of Judicial Officers) told the Working Group that their contribution should be available at the beginning of November 2017. The representative of the EEEI (European Expertise and Expert Institute) specified that their participation in this specific study was still being discussed.
VI. Ad hoc Working Group entrusted with the revision of the definitions used by the CEPEJ
30. The ad hoc Working Group entrusted with the revision of the definitions of the CEPEJ met on 12 September 2017 in Dublin. The process of drafting a glossary of all the definitions used by the CEPEJ in all its tools had begun. The aim of this glossary was to harmonise these definitions and not to replace the explanatory note which merely supplemented the CEPEJ evaluation questionnaire.
31. Mathieu CHARDON (UIHJ) mentioned the importance of such work. He cited as an example the CEPEJ glossary on execution which was now used by everyone as a reference point in this matter.
VII. Co-operation with the Working Group on Mediation of the CEPEJ (CEPEJ-GT-MED)
32. This item was postponed to the next meeting of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL.
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS
33. The next meeting of the Working Group would be held in Strasbourg on 15 and 17 May 2018. The meeting of the national correspondents of the CEPEJ would be held on 16 May 2018. An ad hoc meeting of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL would take place on 19 February 2018 in order to meet experts tasked with drafting the chapters of the next evaluation report and to specify their respective tasks.
34. The CEPEJ-GT-EVAL thanked Ms PAVAN WOOLFE for her warm welcome and the efficient manner in which the meeting had been organised at the Council of Europe office in Venice.
Appendix I
AGENDA / ORDRE DU JOUR
1. Adoption of the agenda / Adoption de l’ordre du jour
2. Information by the members of the GT and the Secretariat / Information des membres du GT et du Secrétariat
3. 2016 – 2018 evaluation cycle and calendar / Cycle d’évaluation 2016 – 2018 et calendrier
a. State of the launching of the 2016 - 2018 evaluation cycle (calendar, participation) / Etat du lancement du cycle d’évaluation 2016 – 2018 (Calendrier, participation)
b. Evolution of CEPEJ-COLLECT (discussion about the data quality control, level of the discrepancy ratio for example) / Evolution de CEPEJ-COLLECT (discussion à propos du contrôle de qualité des données, par exemple le niveau des variations admises)
c. Evolution of CEPEJ-STAT content / Evolution du contenu de CEPEJ-STAT
d. Discussion about the report and the specific report (selection of questions and topics, organisation of the drafting) / Discussion concernant le rapport et le rapport spécifique (sélection des questions et des sujets, organisation de la rédaction)
4. Study for the European Commission on the functioning of judicial systems in the member States of the European Union (Scoreboard of justice) / Etude pour la Commission européenne sur le fonctionnement des systèmes judiciaires dans les Etats membres de l’Union européenne (Tableau de bord de la justice)
Launching of the CEPEJ study (questionnaire, timetable, participants) / Lancement de l’étude de la CEPEJ (questionnaire, calendrier, participants)
5. Peer evaluation cooperation process / Processus de coopération à travers une évaluation par les pairs
a. Peer evaluation in Cyprus / Evaluation par les pairs à Chypre
b. Peer evaluation in Georgia / Evaluation par les pairs en Géorgie
c. Next peer evaluation and possibility to organise working sessions with the Secretariat / Prochaines évaluations par les pairs et possibilité d’organiser des sessions de travail avec le Secrétariat
6. Specific Study on the judicial professionnals - Presentation by the CNUE / Etude spécifique de la CEPEJ sur les professions juridiques - Présentation par le CNUE
7. Ad-hoc Working Group entrusted with the revision of the definitions used by CEPEJ / Groupe de Travail ad hoc chargé de la révision des définitions utilisées par la CEPEJ
8. Cooperation with the CEPEJ Working Group on mediation (CEPEJ-GT-MED) / Coopération avec le Groupe de Travail de la CEPEJ sur la médiation (CEPEJ-GT-MED)
9. Any other business / Questions diverses
Appendix II
List of Participants / Liste des participants
Members / Membres
Ramin GURBANOV, Judge, Baku City Yasamal District court, BAKU, AZERBAIJAN (Vice President of CEPEJ / Vice-Président de la CEPEJ)
Adis HODZIC, Senior Advisor for Statistics High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kraljice Jelene 88, 7100 SARAJEVO, BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
Jean-Paul JEAN, Président de chambre à la Cour de cassation, 5 Quai de l’Horloge, 75055 PARIS CEDEX, France (President of the GT-EVAL / Président du GT-EVAL)
Simone KREβ, Vice-President, Landgericht Köln, Luxemburger Str. 101, 50939 KÖLN, GERMANY
Jaša VRABEC, Head of the Office for Court Management Development, Supreme Court, Tavčarjeva 9, 1000 LJUBLJANA, SLOVENIA
Martina Vrdoljak, head of department for statistics, analytic and strategic development of Judiciary, Directorate for organisation of Judiciary, Ministry of justice, Ulica grada Vukovara 49, 10000 ZAGREB, CROATIA
***
PRESIDENT OF CEPEJ / PRESIDENT DE LA CEPEJ
Georg STAWA, Secretary General of the Austrian Ministry of Justice, Federal Ministry of Justice, Museumstrasse 7, 1016 VIENNA, AUSTRIA
***
Observers / Observateurs
Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe - European lawyers promoting law and justice / Conseil des barreaux européens - Les avocats européens pour le droit et la justice (CCBE)
Simone CUOMO, Senior Legal Advisor, Rue Joseph II, 40/8 – 1000 BRUXELLES, BELGIUM
COUNCIL OF THE NOTARIATS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (CNEU) / CONSEIL DES NOTARIATS DE L’UNION EUROPEENNE (CNUE)
Geertjan SARNEEL, Meijling & Sarneel Notarissen en Adviseurs, Vestiging Kapelle, THE NETHERLANDS
EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION OF JUDGES / Association européenne des MAGISTRATS (EAJ)
EUROPEAN EXPERTISE AND EXPERT INSTITUTE / INSTITUT EUROPEEN DE L’EXPERTISE ET DE L’EXPERT (EEEI)
Raymond LEMAIRE, Président, Institut européen de l’Expertise et de l’Expert, 38 rue de Villiers, 92300 LEVALLOIS, FRANCE
Nico KEIJSER, Vice-
European Union of Rechtspfleger / Union européenne des greffiers de justice et Rechtspfleger (EUR) : Apologised / Excusée
MAGISTRATS EUROPEENS POUR LA DEMOCRATIE ET LES LIBERTES (MEDEL) : Apologised/ Excusé
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF JUDICIAL OFFICERS / UNION INTERNATIONALE DES HUISSIERS DE JUSTICE ET OFFICIERS JUDICIAIRES (UIHJ)
Mathieu CHARDON, Huissier de justice, Secrétaire général de l’UIHJ, 6 place du Colonel Fabien, 75019 PARIS, FRANCE
EUROPEAN COMMISSION / COMISSION EUROPEENNE
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION / CONSEIL DE L’UNION EUROPEENNE: Apologised / Excusé
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT - LIBE COMMISSION / PARLEMENT EUROPEEN - COMMISSION LIBE
***
COUNCIL OF EUROPE / CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE
Secretariat
Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law (DG I)
Division for the Independence and Efficiency of Justice/
Direction Générale des Droits de l’Homme et Etat de droit (DG I)
Division pour l’indépendance et l’efficacité de la justice
E-mail: [email protected]
Muriel DECOT, Co-Secretary of the CEPEJ / Co-secrétaire de la CEPEJ, Tél: +33 (0)3 90 21 44 55, e-mail : [email protected]
Christel SCHURRER, Administrator, Secretary of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL / Administratrice, Secrétaire du CEPEJ-GT-EVAL, Tél : +33 (0)3 90 21 56 97, e-mail: [email protected]
Lidija NAUMOVSKA, Administrator, Statistician / Administratrice, statisticienne, Tél: +33 (0)3 88 41 22 49,
e-mail: [email protected]