Strasbourg, 25 November 2019                                                                                         

CEPEJ-SATURN(2019)8

EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE

(CEPEJ)

STEERING GROUP OF THE SATURN CENTRE FOR JUDICIAL TIME MANAGEMENT

(CEPEJ-SATURN)

26^th meeting

MEETING REPORT

Report drafted by the Secretariat

Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law

1.         The Steering Group of the SATURN Centre for Judicial time management of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ-SATURN) held its 26th meeting on 2 and 4 October 2019 in Barcelona, Spain, chaired by Giacomo OBERTO (Italy).

2.         The agenda and list of participants at the meeting are contained in Annexes I and II respectively to this report.

1.         Information from the Chairman, Group members and the Secretariat

3.         The President informs the members of the group of the various other ongoing work of the CEPEJ following the 32nd plenary meeting of the CEPEJ (June 2019) which he attended.

2.         Towards European judicial timeframes - Implementation guide

4.         At the 2018 meeting of the pilot courts, it was decided to refine the categories of cases for which the courts collect data on new cases, solved cases, pending cases and the age of pending cases. Thus, the pilot courts were asked whether they were collecting data concerning the following 3 categories: civil liability following a traffic accident, intellectual liability and medical defects.

5.         After several reminders, only29 courts answered, out of which 2 answered "Not applicable". Few more courts delivered their answers after the analysis had already been finalized.

 

6.         The purpose of the exercise, managed by expert Marco Fabri (Italy) and the Secretariat, is to provide a tool for court presidents and judges to better control delays according to case categories. The document "Towards European judicial timeframes - Guide to implementation" (Document CEPEJ(2016)5) already has this function, but the working group wanted to refine the categories of cases contained therein.

7.         The difficulty of the exercise lies in the fact that, in order to refine the categories of cases, they must correspond to those actually used in the courts. It is therefore necessary to seek information directly from the courts of the Member States, and it was considered that the CEPEJ's Network of Pilot Courts was the most obvious source of information in this field.

8.         It appears that this collaboration was not as easy as expected and that the information collected, for various reasons, was not sufficient to enable the expert to enrich the existing Implementation Guide.

9.         The CEPEJ-SATURN decides not to continue the work of specifying the categories of cases as carried out so far, and recalls that the existing Implementation Guide is already a useful tool for courts to fight against procedural delays.

10.        It was accepted that it is more effective at this stage to find two voluntary courts, or a cluster of courts, to test the Guide in their courts, under the expert's guidance, so that the expert, by this new method, can then consolidate his work in the light of the experience gained "in the field".

3.         Weighting of cases in European courts

11.        Thanks to experts Shanee Benkin (Israel) and Marco Fabri (Italy), the Working Group is continuing its work to better understand the different existing case weighting systems, as described in the revised CEPEJ-SATURN (2019)17 document. The Group commends the quality of the work done and the current status of the report, which has evolved considerably following the replies to the questionnaire sent by the Secretariat since the last meeting.

12.        This document shows that according to a strict definition, a case weighting system is based on an examination of the time (estimated or actual) spent on a case. According to a broader definition, the system can also assess the complexity of a case through a scoring system based on other indicators than just time spent on the case. The experts identified 4 different types of systems and explained their general characteristics.

13.        Considering that the experts did not consider that they have sufficient precise information on points-based systems, the Working Group decides at this stage to change the title of the document to "Case weighting systems and other methods of assessing case complexity" / "Case complexity assessment: case weighting and other methods". Some members consider that all the systems presented can be considered as case weighting systems.

14.        The experts note the difficulty of obtaining precise information on this subject, as these are new methods, contested by judges, costly to set up and whose objectives vary from country to country (method of assigning cases to judges, tool for assessing judicial needs).

  

15.        According to the experts, the only State to have set up an event-based system is Germany in order to adjust the number of judges needed to the number of cases to be processed, and to improve the distribution of cases. Austria obviously has a system in place but did not reply to the questionnaire. Several States have tried to set up a system in vain.

16.        The President of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE), Duro SESSA (Croatia), invited to comment on the ongoing work, considers that the time spent on a case depends in particular on the judge's experience, for example. This makes it difficult to have full confidence in such time-based systems.

17.        The Working Group believes that case weighting systems can no longer simply take into account the number of cases, but transform that number into time needed to process the cases. It may therefore be desirable to have such time-based system, even if it is imperfect. It was also noted that the artificial intelligence used in judicial systems will, in the coming years, necessarily have an influence on systems of case management, case distribution and therefore also case weighting.

18.        It should be noted that there are judiciaries that have confirmed to have a case-weighting system, but additional analysis has shown that this is not the case. I It was agreed to check whether the systems described in the replies to the questionnaire are indeed real case weighting systems or simple timeframes computation systems or other systems derived from dashboards. To this end, meetings with the representatives from selected European systems should be considered. In the meantime, the experts will try to obtain additional information from those systems in order to understand better how they work.

19.        In line with what was said, it was agreed to organize a workshop in January 2020. The document would then be revised in the light of the new information received. The experts are invited to communicate to the Secretariat as soon as possible the list of States to be invited to this workshop.

20.        The document could be included on the agenda of the CEPEJ plenary meeting (June 2020), with a view to its adoption.

4.         Dashboard for court management

21.        The general objective of the CEPEJ-SATURN's work on the dashboards is to have a common model that would be made available to all European courts, containing guidelines on the data, tables, graphs and indicators that could be contained in a model dashboard (on the number of cases per judge and on the time limit for judging the case, for example according to the discussions held during the meeting of the pilot Courts), accompanied by some examples.

22.        The SATURN Group decides to deepen the work done so far, seeking to answer the question: which tool would be the most useful to manage a court in terms of efficiency, quality and budget through the development of indicators. It is also necessary to propose concretely who will be the recipients of the information collected in the dashboards (public, state, court, etc.). It should be borne in mind that justice is a public service that is accountable for its activity, while respecting the independence of the judiciary.

23.        The idea would not be to build a common model, but a model with different options.

24.        Two experts could be appointed to conduct a study to present the existing system and a list of the indicators most commonly used by court managers. The study should also contain recommendations on what the dashboard should contain to be able to provide needed information, as well as what purposes these informations could be used for. Furthermore, it should also include recommendations on how to build a dashboard. Martin MIKUŠ and Shannee BENKIN could be in charge of this Study. The Working Group instructs the Secretariat to contact them and, if necessary, to prepare the expert contract.

25.        A tool should be developed to enable courts to easily set up a dashboard because it is a necessity for judges and decision makers to use such solutions in their work. It is recalled that the purpose of this exercise is not to help the courts to set up a CEPEJ data collection tool. However, an effective dashboard would make possible to collect certain data more quickly and reliably, which would be useful to the courts but also to the CEPEJ.

           

5.         Role of parties and practitioners in preventing delays in judicial proceedings 

26.        The Secretariat welcomed Mr. James MACGUILL, Vice-President of the CCBE, observer to the CEPEJ, for an exchange of views on the document on the "Role of parties and practitioners in preventing or reducing delays in judicial proceedings" (CEPEJ-SATURN(2017)8REV) prepared by Noël ROBOTHAM (Ireland) and Ivana BORZOVA (Czech Republic).

 

27.        The CCBE had submitted written comments on the document, to which Noël ROBOTHAM replied directly in the document.

28.        The CCBE expressed the wish that its opinion be taken into account in the document by specifying that lawyers exercise their tasks with competence and independence. The lawyers’ independence cannot be put on the same level as that of the judge. They act in the interest of their clients. This independence must be considered in the light of a fair trial. It is proposed that the collaboration with the CCBE should be reflected in the proposal of good practices that would be detailed in the document.

29.        At the same time, it was underlined that lawyers are actors of justice, who, like all others, by their actions, can create delays in the proceedings. CCBE suggested that document states that other actors also contribute to the delays.

30.        It was agreed that further revisions of the document should take place. The Working Group agreed to send additional comments and instructions to the experts regarding future work on this document.

7.         Managing judicial time regulations for criminal cases in ECvHR article 5 and 6

31.        Professor Johnsen presented the work that had already been completed and presented the documents prepared for this meeting. He announced the future steps that have to be carried out in order to make progress on this project, underlining that the starting base for further activities has to be obtaining relevant information from pilot courts and Member states. Considering that there was no sufficient time to organise collection of the information from the pilot courts meeting, a questionnaire will be prepared and will circulate to the pilot courts competent for the criminal cases and interested to participate in the project.

32.        It was agreed that a first step should be the delivery of the written work plan with deadlines, and sent to the CEPEJ Secretariat. Following that, the Working Group would take position on how to proceed with this project.  

8.         Cooperation with pilot courts

33.        The meeting of CEPEJ pilot courts took place on 3^rd of October 2019, during which, the courts were asked to give suggestions on what could be done to boost cooperation with the CEPEJ Working Groups. It was proposed or mentioned that:

- it should be clearly indicated in the titles of the e-mail messages that the Secretariat is waiting for a response;

- courts should always reply to the Secretariat’s questionnaires, even if they are not in a position to provide requested data, rather than not answering at all;

- some questionnaires (e. g. that of a disability researcher) are very complex and take too long to answer;

- the CEPEJ tools presented on the CEPEJ website should be better highlighted and classified by importance.

34.        The CEPEJ-SATURN agrees to categorise courts by "clusters" on the basis of their competences. In this way it will be ensured that only selected courts are contacted on a given issue, and at the same time, it is expected that courts will be more motivated to engage if they are interested in the subject.

35.        It was agreed to include on the agenda of the next plenary meeting of the CEPEJ the revision of the procedure for appointing pilot courts, in particular because some national courts that are not part of the  "CEPEJ network of pilot courts", test CEPEJ tools, whereas the Secretariat is unaware of such endeavors and  does not receive the results of such tests. The general list of tools should also be cleaned and reviewed to allow interested courts to implement those that best match their needs.

8.         Other items

36.        The President of the CEPEJ-SATURN will attend the next plenary meeting of the CEPEJ (5 and 6 December 2019).

37.        The next meeting of the CEPEJ-SATURN will take place on 26-27 March 2020 in Paris.

APPENDIX I 

AGENDA /ORDRE DU JOUR

1.       Opening of the meeting / Ouverture de la réunion

2.      Information by the President, members of the Group and the Secretariat

Information du Président, des membres du Groupe et du Secrétariat

3.      Towards European timeframes for judicial proceedings - Implementation Guide

Vers des délais judiciaires européens - Guide de mise en œuvre

Discussion on the draft analysis on selected case categories / Discussion sur le projet d’analyse de catégories d’affaires déterminées

4.      Case weighting in European courts

Pondération des affaires dans les tribunaux européens

Discussion on the draft document / Discussion sur le projet de document

5.   Preparation of the pilot courts’ meeting and discussion on how to improve cooperation with pilot courts

Préparation de la reunion des tribunaux pilotes et discussion sur la manière d’améliorer la cooperation avec les tribunaux pilotes

Discussion

6.      Dashboard[1] for court management

Tableau de bord[2] pour la gestion des tribunaux

Discussion on the work to be undertaken based on the discussions with the pilot courts / Discussion du travail à réaliser sur la base des discussions avec les tribunaux pilotes

7.      Managing judicial time regulations for criminal cases in ECvHR article 5 and 6

Gestion des règles de temps judiciaire pour les affaires pénales dans les articles 5 et 6 de la CvEDH

Discussion with the scientific expert, Jon T. Johnsen (Norway) on the draft document / Discussion sur le projet de document avec l’expert scientifique, Jon T. Johnsen (Norvège)

8.      Role of the parties and the practitioners in preventing delays in court proceedings

Rôle des parties et des praticiens afin de prévenir les retards dans les procédures judiciaires

Exchange of views with the Consultative Council of European Bar Associations (CCBE) / Echange de vues avec la Conseil des barreaux européens (CCBE)

Discussion on the draft document / Discussion sur le projet de document

9.       Co-operation programmes / Programmes de coopération

10.    Other items / Divers

APPENDIX II

List of Participants / Liste des participants

***

MEMBERS / MEMBRES

Ivana BORZOVÁ, Head of Department of Civil Supervision, Ministry of Justice, CZECH REPUBLIC

Ivan CRNČEC, Assistant Minister of Justice, ZAGREB, CROATIA

Francesco DEPASQUALE, The Honourable Mr Justice, Superior Courts, VALLETTA, MALTA

Vassilis ANDROULAKIS, Judge at the Council of State, ATHENS, GREECE

Giacomo OBERTO, Magistrat, Tribunal de Grande Instance, TURIN, Italie (President of SATURN / Président du SATURN)

Noel RUBOTHAM, Former Head of Reform and Development, Courts Service, DUBLIN, IRELAND

***

PRESIDENT OF CEPEJ /PRESIDENT DE LA CEPEJ

Ramin GURBANOV, Judge, Baku City Yasamal District Court, Co-ordinator of Judicial Modernisation Project, BAKU

***

Scientific ExpertS / Experts scientifiques

Marco FABRI, Research director, National Research Council of Italy, BOLOGNA, ITALY

Jon T. JOHNSEN, Professor in Law, Faculty of law, University of Oslo, OSLO, Norway

Shanee BENKIN, Scientific expert, HADERA, ISRAEL

***

OBSERVER STATE TO THE CEPEJ / ÉTAT OBSERVATEUR AUPRES DE LA CEPEJ

ISRAEL / ISRAËL

Gali AVIV, Director of the Courts Research Division, Supreme Court of Israel, JERUSALEM

***

OBSERVERS / OBSERVATEURS

EUROPEAN UNION OF RECHTSPFLEGER AND COURT CLERKS / UNION EUROPEENNE DES GREFFIERS DE JUSTICE (EUR)

Alberto Tomas SAN JOSE CORS, Vice-président de l’EUR

José Julio PAREJA SANZ, Avocat de l’administration de la justice

COUNCIL OF THE BARS AND LAW SOCIETIES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION / CONSEIL DES BARREAUX EUROPÉENS (CCBE)

James MACGUILL, Vice-president of the CCBE

***

INVITED PARTICIPANTS / PARTICIPANTS INVITÉS

Duro SESSA, President of the CCJE, President of the Supreme Court of Croatia ZAGREB, CROATIA

Zuzana SCHURER PIOVARČIOVÁ, Adviser of the Analytical Unit, Ministry of Justice, BRATISLAVA, SLOVAK REPUBLIC

Martin MIKUŠ, Analytical Centre, Ministry of Justice, BRATISLAVA, SLOVAK REPUBLIC

***

COUNCIL OF EUROPE / CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE

SECRETARIAT

Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law (DGI) - Division for the Independence and Efficiency of Justice /

Direction générale droits de l’Homme et Etat de droit (DGI) - Division pour l’indépendance et l’efficacité de la justice

E-mail : [email protected]

Hanne JUNCHER, Head of Justice and Legal Co-operation Department / Chef du service de la coopération judiciaire et juridique

Muriel DECOT, Secretary of the CEPEJ / Secrétaire de la CEPEJ

Milan NIKOLIC, Co-secretary of the group CEPEJ-SATURN / Co-secrétaire du groupe CEPEJ-SATURN,

Ioana VOELKEL,  Assistant / Assistante

INTERPRETERS / INTERPRETES

Corinne McGEORGE-MAGALLON

Danielle GREE