Strasbourg, 11 December 2015

CEPEJ(2015)18

EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICENCY OF JUSTICE

(CEPEJ)

IMPLEMENTING THE SATURN TIME MANAGEMENT TOOLS IN COURTS

A GUIDE

Updated version

As adopted at the 26^th plenary meeting of the CEPEJ

Strasbourg 10 & 11 December 2015

 

1.   PURPOSE OF THE GUIDE

MOTIVATION

1.     Excessive duration of court cases is a major problem in most European states. Various surveys[1] have shown that judicial delay is perceived as the number one problem not just by public opinion as a whole but also by those with direct experience of the courts. This situation does a disservice to all users, whatever their “position” in the judicial system: litigants, accused persons, victims, witnesses, members of the jury, etc. (with the exception of those who have an interest in seeing the proceedings lasting a long time).

2.     Courts must be able to organise their work and procedures aiming to process each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe. The concept of “reasonable time” provided for in Article 6.1 of the European Convention of Human Rights is a “lower limit” (which draws the border line between the violation and non-violation of the Convention) Courts should, however, aspire at further optimizing their time use also when the minimum level set in the Convention is achieved.

3.     Achieving optimal and foreseeable judicial timeframes might involve many bodies, from the authorities at national level to the level of the courts themselves: proposals relating to length of judicial proceedings must be drawn up with the active involvement of those concerned. The specific nature of the judiciary is not an argument for allowing delay to endure. Therefore this Guide is mainly aimed at the court level and the professionals working within the courts.

4.     Two main ideas behind the implementation programme are:

§  to find out why relevant SATURN tools are not implemented in the courts in member states although the need for improvements clearly exists;

§  to identify tools that courts could implement on their own, encourage them to do so and study the process of identifying relevant tools and the implementation of them.

5.     It is essential to learn more about the courts' grounds for wanting to implement some tools before others, the obstacles that the courts meet during the implementation process, the outcomes and to what extent the experiences of the single court are transferrable to other courts - both within the same jurisdiction and outside.

6.     One obvious advantage of using an implementation programme as an additional way of mapping the relevance and usability of the CEPEJ tools is that all successful implementations will improve the time management of the participating court. It also contributes to the overall objective of the CEPEJ's SATURN Centre, namely to improve the time management of the courts at large. Reports might have model impacts on other courts in the jurisdiction and also on policy makers and judicial administrators. They might also bear on other jurisdictions.

7.     Studying individual and planned implementation processes might also produce a rich and detailed picture of the challenges, obstacles and remedies necessary to be overcome if the tools shall work in practice. Implementation projects therefore open for a very useful dialogue beetween the SATURN Centre and individual courts in Europe.

      A PROVED FRAMEWORK  

8.     This simple Guide aims to help courts and court professionals in evaluating the proper implementation of selected SATURN tools and in improving their implementation when lacunas are identified. It also aims at learning from such implementation projects by proposing guidelines for reporting them to the CEPEJ so that the SATURN Centre as well as national judicial authorities can take the results into account for a wider benefit.

9.     The methodology in this Guide was first trialled and discussed in the seven following pilot courts (from six member states):

§  First instance court of Nedre Romerike, Norway

§  District Court of Prague 1, Czech Republic

§  Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice and Central London Civil Justice Centre, England and Wales (United Kingdom)

§  Tbilisi Appeal Court, Georgia

§  First Instance Court of Turin, Italy

§  Judicial district Court of Dorneck-Thierstein, Switzerland

10.  After the test within the pilot courts, the methodology was applied in several courts during cooperation projects, for example in Albania, Croatia, Malta, Morocco and Turkey and also in individual courts for example in Germany (Freiburg in Breisgau), Greece (Thessaloniki), Italy (Siracusa) and Slovakia (Bratislava). The methodology can be used for all types of courts (from the first instance to the High Court) and can be used also for the improvement of the procedure lengths within the public prosecutor’s office.

11.  The results from the test projects are reported on in the document "Implementation of SATURN time management tools - Synthesizing report from seven test projects" (CEPEJ-SATURN(2011)2)[3]. The methodology proposed below has then been amended and completed from the experiences of the seven test projects and from the experiences made during the implementation projects mentioned above (cooperation project and court coaching activities).

2.   METHODOLOGY FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SATURN TOOLS IN COURTS

 SATURN PRIORITIES

12.  CEPEJ has produced a significant number of tools for better time management in European courts (see chapter 3 below). Among them, the "SATURN Guidelines for judicial time management" (CEPEJ 2008)8Rev) have been chosen for the Guide. Out of the more than sixty guidelines, the SATURN Centre has selected less than twenty of them as the starting point. They are labelled: "SATURN priorities" in this Guide. All of them are supposed to be implementable from the courts' own autonomy. None of them presuppose any active involvement from other judicial authorities, only their consent, although exceptions might occur.

13.  The SATURN preferential Guidelines can be enumerated in three main groups based on the experience during court cooperation programs.

Objective

Guideline 1Particular attention should be given to the cases where integral duration is such that it may give rise to the finding of the violation of the human right to a trial within reasonable time[4]. (Guideline III.C.2 of document CEPEJ(2008)8).

1. Monitoring of data, analysis and information

Monitoring and collection of data

Guideline 2 The court managers should collect information on the most important steps in the judicial process. They should keep records regarding the duration between these steps. In respect to the steps monitored, due regard should be given to the Time management Checklist, Indicator Four[5].(Guideline IV.A.1 of document CEPEJ(2008)8).

Example of procedural steps in a first instance civil court⁵:

i.              Instigation of proceedings

ii. Service of process upon the other party

iii. Receipt of the response by the other party

iv. Making of procedural orders by the court

v. The use and timing of preparatory conferences or preliminary hearings

vi. Beginning of the trial stage (first oral hearing on the merits)

vii. Existence and duration of technical expertises

viii. Duration and number of hearings on the merits of each case

ix. Conclusion of the trial stage

x. Decision-making in the first-instance (preliminary decisions, partial judgments, final judgments)

xi. Announcement and delivery of the first instance decision (judgment) to the parties

xii. Launching of legal remedies (appeal etc.) and their impact on the duration of the proceedings

xiii. Appellate hearings and decisions

xiv. Preliminary decisions and orders in higher courts (e.g. announcement of the judgment or delivering reasons)

xv. Course and results of the appellate and other proceedings (e.g. reversal of a decision or sending the case for re-trial)

xvi. Other (extraordinary) stages and remedies (e.g. re-opening of a case or constitutional review)

xvii. Effectiveness of the decision, enforcement

Guideline 3 The monitoring should make sure that the periods of inactivity (waiting time) in the judicial proceeding are not excessively long, and wherever such extended periods exist, particular efforts have to be made in order to speed up the proceeding and compensate for the delay[6].(Guideline III.C.3 of document CEPEJ(2008)8).

Continuing Analysis

Guideline 4 All information collected should be continually analysed and used for the purposes of monitoring and improvement of performance.(Guideline IV.B.1 of document CEPEJ(2008)8).

Information

Guideline 5 The information collected should be available, to inform the work of court administrators, judges and the central authorities responsible for the administration of justice. In appropriate form, the information should also be made available to the parties and the general public[7].(Guideline IV.A.2 of document CEPEJ(2008)8).

Guideline 6 The reports on the results of analysis should be produced at regular intervals, at least once a year, with appropriate recommendations.(Guideline IV.B.3 of document CEPEJ(2008)8).

2. Planning, setting targets and intervention

Planning at a general level

Guideline 7 The length of judicial proceedings should be planned at the general level (planning of average/mean duration of particular types of cases, or average/mean duration of process before certain types of courts)(…)[8]. (Guideline I.C.1 of document CEPEJ(2008)8).

Planning at the level of concrete proceedings

Guideline 8 The length of judicial proceedings should be planned (…) at the level of concrete proceedings[9]. (Guideline I.C.1 of document CEPEJ(2008)8).

Setting targets

Guideline 9 In addition to the standards and targets set at the higher level (national, regional), there should be specific targets at the level of individual courts. The court managers should have sufficient authorities and autonomy to actively set or participate in setting of these targets[10]. (Guideline IV.C.1 of document CEPEJ(2008)8).

Guideline 10 The targets should clearly define the objectives and be achievable. They should be published and subject to periodical re-evaluation.(Guideline IV.C.2 of document CEPEJ(2008)8).

Intervention

Guideline 11 The targets may be used in the evaluation of the court performance. If they are not achieved, the concrete steps and actions have to be taken to remedy the situation. (Guideline IV.C.3 of document CEPEJ(2008)8).

Guideline 12 If departures from standards and targets for judicial timeframes are being observed or foreseen, prompt actions should be taken in order to remedy the causes of such departures. (Guideline III.C.1 of document CEPEJ(2008)8).

Guideline 13 In the situations where there is a significant departure from the targets set at the court level, there should be specific means to rapidly and adequately address the cause of the problem. (Guideline IV.D.1 of document CEPEJ(2008)8).

3. Consultation on the scheduling of procedural steps

Guideline 14 The users are entitled to be consulted in the time management of the judicial process and in setting the dates or estimating the timing of all future procedural steps. (Guideline I.C.2 of document CEPEJ(2008)8).

Guideline 15 Where possible, the judge should attempt to reach agreement with all participants in the procedure regarding the procedural calendar. For this purpose, he should also be assisted by appropriate court personnel (clerks) and information technology. (Guideline V.B.2 of document CEPEJ(2008)8).

Guideline 16 The deviations from the agreed calendar should be minimal and restricted to justified cases. In principle, the extension of the set time limits should be possible only with the agreement of all parties, or if the interests of justice so require. (Guideline V.B.3 of document CEPEJ(2008)8).

METHODOLOGY

14.  The SATURN priorities are the focus of the implementation methodology (court coaching or judicial system coaching)

Step 1 –      Collection of information before the first meeting

When possible, it is very useful to collect the following information about the coached court or judicial system before the first coaching meeting:

• The description of the organisation and an organigram of the court or the judicial system
• Description of the competences of the court
• Statistics per type of cases or per sections of the court (or per courts for the expertise of an entire judicial system) of the last 3 to 5 years containing the following data:
• • Number of pending cases at the beginning of the (judicial) year
  • Number of incoming cases during the (judicial) year
  • Number of resolved cases during the (judicial) year
  • Number of pending cases at the end of the (judicial) year
  • Structure of the pending cases at the end of the last year (number older than 6 month, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 5 years, 10 years); structure of resolved cases (statistic 3, Eugmont Annex); minimum number of cases older than two years
  • Number of judges (FTE) for all the type of cases or section for all the years
  • Number of court law graduate employees (FTE) for all the type of cases or section for all the years involved in the jurisprudence
  • Total number of court staff (FTE) for all the type of cases or section for all the years
    
    
• Other useful information you would like to provide.

The statistics data can be introduced if possible into a dedicated table (see appendix 4).

The collection of data prior the meeting is essential to have a first impression about the situation of the court or of the judicial system and to prepare the meeting.

Step 2 –      Evaluation of the existing implementation of the SATURN Guidelines in the courts’ practices (in a meeting with the concerned stakeholders)

Saturn priorities: as the first step, courts are advised to focus on the SATURN priorities.

Evaluation: the first step for the court is to thoroughly compare each of the SATURN priorities to its existing time management practises and evaluate to what extent they are implemented to day.  The court staff should first of all examine the level of implementation of the selected guidelines within the court. This analysis should enable to see whether the selected guidelines are:

-       not implemented at all;

-       partially implemented;

-       fully implemented;

-       not implemented as such, but there is another practice / procedure which enables to achieve the same result;

-       not implemented so far, but implementation is already planned;

-       See appendix 3

The court staff should then analyse and report the obstacles for implementing (or fully implementing) each of the guidelines in the SATURN priorities.

The experiences from the past court coaching activities show that almost all courts find some deficits in the implementation of the selected preferential Guidelines.

The SATURN Guidelines is built on the practices of the European Court of Human Rights. If done properly, the evaluation will provide the court with a precise picture of what the risks of violations of the ECHR are in the field covered by the SATURN priorities. It is paramount to a proper evaluation that the court has a well-developed understanding of the goals and functions of the Guidelines. 

Translation: since the SATURN priorities must be clearly understood by all the actors involved at the court, it is of the utmost importance for the court to have them translated, where appropriate, into national languages.  For producing the translation, cooperation might be organised with the Ministry of Justice or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The court can also see with the CEPEJ Secretariat possible ways for having such essential translations organised. 

Expert assistance: as an alternative to doing the evaluation on its own, courts may ask CEPEJ for the support of an expert. The expert will then carry out a thorough discussion with the court to what extent their practices and routines are in accordance with the SATURN priorities. See Appendix 2 and document CEPEJ(2011)2 as examples from the test projects.

Step 3 - Implementation of the SATURN priorities

When courts find that one or more of the Guidelines are not fully implemented, the next step is to put up projects for implementing them. According to their capacity and priorities, courts should choose one or more of the Guidelines not implemented. They might emphasize the possible gains for the users, the available resources and the prospects of success.

Considering that it is not always easy for a court to find out how to implement a specific Guideline, there exists a document called “Comments and implementation examples” (doc. CEPEJ-SATURN(2015)2. This regularly actualised document contains for each preferential Guideline and also for some others good practices collected mostly within the pilot courts. So the court can find the best possible practice which will allow them to improve its functioning and to implement the not implemented Guideline.

Project management and action plan: An individualized implementation plan containing the necessary steps for each tool selected should be developed. Such plans ought to point out the guidelines selected and the different steps considered necessary to make them operational – like upgrading the computer system, new routines for involving the parties in time planning, measures for shortening queuing, etc.

Plans should also include a timetable for the different steps. The implementation process might last several months or even years. Obviously it will differ between courts how demanding a Guideline is to implement.

Expert assistance: for the development of an implementation plan, courts may also ask CEPEJ for the support of an expert instead of doing it on their own.

Step 4 – Reporting

Reporting is important to other courts and to judicial administrations that might consider similar reforms. It should run parallel to the two other steps. Reporting is also indispensable if the SATURN Centre shall better understand what the practical obstacles are to the implementation of the CEPEJ tools.

Reports should be well structured and preferably follow a common template in all courts (see Appendix 1 and 2). They should contain the following elements:

-       General description of the court.

-       Description of the implementation degree

-       Detailed description of the process of selecting CEPEJ tools for implementation.

-       Description of the implementation process.

-       Outcome.

-       Time used for implementation.

-       External cooperation.

-       Recommendations. 

The court might itself provide for reporting. Another possibility is to ask the national judicial administration for assistance. As for the other steps, the SATURN Centre might also be asked for assistance with reporting. A CEPEJ member, a SATURN expert or an independent expert hired by CEPEJ might provide the necessary assistance and improve its relevance for the work of the SATURN Centre.

Reports should be translated into English or French, if necessary with the support of the CEPEJ Secretariat.

CEPEJ understands that reporting is an extra burden on a court and not strictly necessary for improving practices in that particular court. However, the experiences from the test projects show that such reports provide with extremely valuable information. Improvements in the Guidelines and the ways they might be implemented from what has been learned from them are being considered. Similar gains are expected for the development of better judicial systems in Europe from implementation projects carried out according to this guide and courts should not hesitate to consult with the SATURN Centre on any aspect of doing implementation projects as described.

For any request or question, the court can contact the CEPEJ Secretariat: Council of Europe – F 67075 Strasbourg Cedex - [email protected] – tel: 33 3 88 41 35 54. 

3. IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS ON OTHER SATURN TOOLS

15.  CEPEJ has developed a range of tools and measures aimed to improve time management in courts. If the evaluation foreseen within the first step mentioned above shows that the court’s practices conform well to the SATURN priorities, it might consider the implementation of other time management techniques from the SATURN toolbox.

The SATURN toolbox §  The "Time Management Checklist" (CEPEJ(2005)12Rev), adopted in 2005. It is a tool for internal use of its stakeholders whose purpose is to help justice systems to collect appropriate information and analyze relevant aspects of the duration of judicial proceedings with a view to reduce undue delays, ensure effectiveness of the proceedings and provide necessary transparency and foreseeability to the users of the justice systems. §  The Study: "Time management of justice systems: a Northern Europe study" (CEPEJ Studies No. 2, 2006), which contains a broad collection of time management strategies described in governmental reports in Northern European states. Most of the tools address policy makers and administrators of justice systems, but several of them also address the courts. Part II contains tools developed for time management in criminal cases at the police and prosecution, but most of them might be adoptable by the courts. §  The report "Length of court proceedings in the member states of the Council of Europe based on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights", by Martine Calvez, updated by Nicolas Régis in 2012. It analyses the major considerations behind the “reasonable time” standard (Article 6 ECHR article) and spells out the deadlines that can be extracted from the judgments of the European Courts of Human Rights. §  The "SATURN Guidelines for judicial time management" (CEPEJ(2008)8Rev), adopted in 2008.They contain measures for the courts, for policy makers and administrative authorities and also for prosecutors. The Guidelines include an essential appendix on time management statistics – European uniform guidelines for monitoring of judicial timeframes (EUGMONT). Taken together, these documents offer a wide variety of tools that courts can use to improve their time management (a "SATURN toolbox"). All courts that experience delays of some significance and are found in violation of the "reasonable time" criterion (Article 6-1 ECHR) by the European Court of Human Rights will find that several of the SATURN time management tools might be useful if they decide to implement reforms.

16.  The method detailed in the guide can be adapted also to such other time management tools.  CEPEJ-SATURN wants to encourage projects on any of the SATURN tools.  All courts are very welcome to consult with CEPEJ about such implementation projects.

Appendix 1

Model Report

1.         GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE COURT

Name:

Type / competences of the court:

§        General jurisdiction

-       Civil

-       Criminal

-       Other

§        Specialised court: which field?

Location:

Staffing (FTE), for example:

§        Number of professional judges

§        Number of non professional judges

§        Number of occasional judges

§        Number of prosecutors attached to the court

§        Number of non-judge staff (by category), for example:

-       Number of Rechtspfleger or equivalent, if such functions exist

-       Number of non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judge (such as registrars)

-       Number of staff in charge of administrative tasks and management of courts

-       Number of technical staff and others (drivers, security officers, etc)

-       Number of non-judge staff whose task is to assist the prosecution office

-       Number of staff in charge of administrative tasks and management of prosecution office

Equipment (incl. IT equipment and tools, such as case management tools, templates for judgements, access to jurisprudence and legal database) and infrastructure:

 Population served by the court:

Caseload (pending cases, incoming cases, etc), and age of the pending cases (specially cases older than 2 years), CR, DT, CPJ and CPS[11] indicators and brief analysis of the situation based on these data

2.         DETAILED DESCRIPTON OF THE IMPLEMENTATION DEGREE OF THE GUIDELINES

     

After the text of each Guideline, a description

a)     of the current situation regarding the concrete Guideline has to be written

b)     the implementation degree (not implemented, partially implemented, fully implemented, etc.) has to be given

c)     In case of an implementation degree corresponding to not or partially implemented, a recommendation or an idea for an implementation project have to be proposed.

At the end of this chapter of the report, a balance of the implementation degree has to be made [How many Guidelines are fully implemented, partially implemented, not implemented, etc.]

Objective

Guideline 1 Particular attention should be given to the cases where integral duration is such that it may give rise to the finding of the violation of the human right to a trial within reasonable time.

A. Monitoring of data, analysis and information

Monitoring and collection of data

Guideline 2 The court managers should collect information on the most important steps in the judicial process. They should keep records regarding the duration between these steps. In respect to the steps monitored, due regard should be given to the Time management Checklist, Indicator Four.

Guideline 3 The monitoring should make sure that the periods of inactivity (waiting time) in the judicial proceeding are not excessively long, and wherever such extended periods exist, particular efforts have to be made in order to speed up the proceeding and compensate for the delay.

Continuing Analysis

Guideline 4 All information collected should be continually analysed and used for the purposes of monitoring and improvement of performance.

Information

Guideline 5 The information collected should be available, to inform the work of court administrators, judges and the central authorities responsible for the administration of justice. In appropriate form, the information should also be made available to the parties and the general public.

Guideline 6 The reports on the results of analysis should be produced at regular intervals, at least once a year, with appropriate recommendations.

B. Planning, setting targets and intervention

Planning at a general level

Guideline 7 The length of judicial proceedings should be planned at the general level (planning of average/mean duration of particular types of cases, or average/mean duration of process before certain types of courts)(…).

Planning at the level of concrete proceedings

Guideline 8 The length of judicial proceedings should be planned (…) at the level of concrete proceedings.

Setting targets

Guideline 9 In addition to the standards and targets set at the higher level (national, regional), there should be specific targets at the level of individual courts. The court managers should have sufficient authorities and autonomy to actively set or participate in setting of these targets[12].

Guideline 10 The targets should clearly define the objectives and be achievable. They should be published and subject to periodical re-evaluation.

Intervention

Guideline 11 The targets may be used in the evaluation of the court performance. If they are not achieved, the concrete steps and actions have to be taken to remedy the situation.

Guideline 12 If departures from standards and targets for judicial timeframes are being observed or foreseen, prompt actions should be taken in order to remedy the causes of such departures.

Guideline 13 In the situations where there is a significant departure from the targets set at the court level, there should be specific means to rapidly and adequately address the cause of the problem.

C. Consultation on the scheduling of procedural steps

Guideline 14 The users are entitled to be consulted in the time management of the judicial process and in setting the dates or estimating the timing of all future procedural steps.

Guideline 15 Where possible, the judge should attempt to reach agreement with all participants in the procedure regarding the procedural calendar. For this purpose, he should also be assisted by appropriate court personnel (clerks) and information technology.

Guideline 16 The deviations from the agreed calendar should be minimal and restricted to justified cases. In principle, the extension of the set time limits should be possible only with the agreement of all parties, or if the interests of justice so require.

3. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PROCESS OF SELECTING CEPEJ TOOLS FOR IMPLEMENTATION (PROJECT DESCRIPTION)

The reasons both for including and excluding tools should be thoroughly recorded.

Explanation on the selection process: [how and why have you chosen to give priorities to specific guidelines and tools?]

Description of the implementation process:  [the different steps necessary should be mapped, elucidating questions as: What were the challenges and what went smoothly? To what extent was the implementation successful? What were the reasons behind failures?]

Outcome:  [to what extent did successful implementations result in actually improvements of the court’s time management? Please answer for each of the for new implementation selected Guideline]

4.         CONCLUDING COMMENTS

Time used for implementation:  [how long did the successful implementations take? Factors that influenced time use ought to be listed and ways to reduce time used on implementation discussed.]

External cooperation: [to what extent did the implementation of each tool involve collaboration with other? How did such collaboration work?]

Recommendations:  [major findings on factors that influence the implementation and use of CEPEJ time management tools ought to be evaluated for the purpose of possible reforms: How do the implemented tools influence time management? What are the gains? Are the findings applicable to other CEPEJ time management tools? Are they applicable to other courts in the jurisdiction of the court and to courts in other jurisdictions?] 

Other comments:

Appendix 2: Examples of reports

List of reports available online on the CEPEJ Website: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/cepej/Delais/default_en.asp

·         Regional court of Fribourg [Germany], April 2012 [en]

·         Court of Syracuse [Italy], May 2013 [it]

·         Regional court of Bratislava [Slovakia], April 2013 [en]

EXAMPLE OF A REPORT ON JUDICIAL TIME MANAGEMENT

IN THE COURT OF A. ____

Drawn up following the visits on … and …

(V2-anonymised)

1.            GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE COURT

The creation of the seven courts of this type is comparatively recent, dating back to 3 March 1994. Courts of this type are governed by the following legislative and regulatory provisions: ….

1.1 Name and place

Court of A.___, the most important among the seven courts of the same type (it alone deals with 45% of cases).

1.2 Territorial and substantive jurisdiction

The rule of territorial jurisdiction corresponding to the defendant’s place of residence is applicable to courts of this type.

Two types of actions are possible: actions on the merits and summary applications.

-           Action on the merits

Under art. 8, courts of this type are competent to rule at first instance on applications to set aside decisions of administrative authorities for ultra vires acts, disputes over administrative contracts, and actions for redress of damages caused by the acts or activities of public entities, except where traffic accidents are concerned.

Courts of this type are moreover competent to assess the lawfulness of administrative acts under the conditions laid down in art. 44.

Finally, the Court of A.___ has sole jurisdiction over litigation concerning political parties and the supreme authority for audiovisual communication.

-           Summary application

            Schematically, the President of the Court is competent as a summary applications judge:

•           on an application to determine provisional and preventive claims (art. 19)

•           on expropriation (art. 38).

1.4 Staff

-       Number of career judges:                      27 judges (including an executions judge)

-       Number of royal commissioners:                        3

-       Number of registrars or commissioners:                         80 registry clerks

-       Number of enforcement agents:                         4

-       Number of other staff (security officers, etc.): /

The Commissioner participates in hearings with the task of presenting his interpretation of the law.

1.5   Material and equipment

• Data processing: The interactive terminals placed at the entrance to the Court enable the parties or their lawyers to consult personally the status of the case file. In addition, access on line (Internet) provides access to all judgments delivered, with a summary (operative part) and the names of the parties, but without the statement of grounds which is made orally in a public hearing.

• Premises: the Court is short of space, especially as 3 courts share the building. There are not enough offices, and a single court room set aside for the sole use of the Court. Where offices are concerned, all available rooms are occupied (libraries, etc.) and many registry staff work in them. It is not uncommon for a clerk to have barely more than a square metre of working space. Regarding the court rooms, according to the President of the Court, pooling the rooms with the other two courts which occupy the courthouse is not conceivable because as a rule the other courts occupy their rooms every day.

Recommendation 1: Adequate premises and sufficient court rooms

1a) The Court is invited to send the Ministry of Justice a catalogue of its needs for premises, particularly as regards offices and court rooms.

1b) The Ministry of Justice is invited to resolve with all possible speed the problems regarding premises and court rooms for the Court of A____.

1.6 Organisation of the court

• Function of presiding judge

The president is the single judge in all cases coming under the summary procedure. He holds 2 hearings per week and if possible delivers judgment forthwith; there are standard recitals and, in the more complex cases, registrars are at his disposal.

• Subdivisions of the court

The Court is subdivided into sections managed by judicial commissioners. Two large sections deal with litigation over abuse of authority and full remedy litigation respectively. Apart from the cases tried in summary proceedings by the president alone, judgments are delivered by a panel of three judges, moreover nearly always including the president. Cases are generally called within 3 weeks after their reception and settled in one hearing, two if required, the second hearing being scheduled two or three weeks later at the most.

            All sections entertain all types of cases without specialisation. The law assigns the president competence to apportion the cases between the judges. In so doing he nevertheless takes account of the judges’ “specialisations”, or the similarities with cases already allocated, brought to his attention by the registry.

1.7 Caseload:

The Administrative Court of A____ has seen the following trend in its caseload from 2010 to 2014:

Trend in caseload	Cas. brought	Cas. settled	Cas. deferred	CR	DT
2014	13670	14883	816	109%	20
2013	6023	6363	2029	106%	116
2012	4912	6419	2369	131%	135
2011	5067	5673	3876	112%	249
2010	4087	5493	4448	134%	296

Cases brought increased from slightly over 4000 to almost 14000 during the period under review. They more than doubled between 2013 and 2014. The President reports that in 2014, almost 8000 new cases registered are all identical: these are expropriation cases (summary applications all handled by the President). The number of cases settled is still higher than the number of cases brought. The outcome is a steady decrease in the number of cases pending: it fell from almost 4500 to just over 800 in 2014: thus the backlog was divided by 5.

CR: Rate of variation of the pending cases (indicator CR – clearance rate): ratio between new cases and cases resolved over a period, expressed in per cent.

Example: if during one calendar year the court has had 500 new cases brought before it and at the same time has resolved 550 cases, the CR is 110%. If the court had only managed to resolve 400 cases, the CR would be 80%. A CR above 100% means that the number of cases pending is decreasing.

If applied to the caseload of the Court of A____, the following picture is obtained as regards the trend of the Clearance Rate. It is observed to be constantly over 100%.

DT: Time taken to resolve the pending cases (indicator DT – disposition time): this indicator compares the number of cases resolved during the period under review and the number of cases unresolved at the end of the same period. The figure 365 is divided by the number of cases resolved divided by the number of cases unresolved at the end, so that the indicator can be expressed in number of days. The ratio measures the speed at which the judicial system (or the court) finishes with the cases before it – that is the time needed for a certain category of cases to be resolved. This indicator affords a better understanding of how a judicial system manages its flow of cases.

Case Turnover Ratio:Estimated time to clear the backlog of cases pending: ratio of number of cases resolved to number of cases pending at the end of the period in question. This calculates the number of times during the year (or a given period) that the backlog of a category of cases turns over or is resolved during the year.

Applied to the Court of A____, the estimated time to clear the backlog (DT) is observed to have followed a parallel trend to the number of cases pending. The high proportion of cases under summary procedure in 2014 significantly influences the value of the DT indicator which as a result of this is less than the average duration of the proceedings determined in a composition of the court with three judges.

According to the President of the Court, the age of the cases pending can be summed up as follows: About 13 case files remain from the year 2013. otherwise all cases were registered in 2014 and 2015. Some 2015 cases were tried, though introduced in March. Moreover, the law compels courts of this type to handle electoral disputes with particular celerity (within 2 months).

Comments and possible recommendations

The results are highly positive, even though the president notes that taxation cases take time because of the expert appraisals.

The president stresses that if the rate of appeal against the judgments of courts of this type is higher than in civil or criminal litigation, it is due to the fact that the state is under an obligation to appeal judgments delivered in cases concerning it, besides which administrative appeal is free of charge. He considers that the ideal volume of cases in hand should be in the region of 600.

Recommendation 2: Continue completing a number of cases equivalent to the number of freshly introduced cases (= maintain a CR around 100%).

2.         DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PROCESS OF SELECTING THE CEPEJ TOOLS FOR IMPLEMENTATION

     

2.1 Persons present

For the Court: The president, Mr Xxx YYY and the vice-president of the Court.

For the CEPEJ: Mr Jacques Bühler, member of the CEPEJ in respect of Switzerland and Chair of SATURN, the CEPEJ working group on judicial time; Mr João Arsénio de Oliveira, member of the CEPEJ in respect of Portugal and member of the CEPEJ Working Group on Quality of Justice. They were accompanied by Ms Clementina Barbaro, Head of Unit in the CEPEJ Secretariat.

2.2 Description of the methodology employed

The CEPEJ experts conferred with the representatives of the Court and in the course of the discussions reviewed the priority guidelines and the points directly concerning the Court in the quality checklist.

2.3 Degree of implementation of the 15 selected guidelines

The 15 guidelines can be grouped together in three main categories: 1. Collection of data and monitoring, analysis and information; 2. Planning, setting targets and intervention; 3. Consultation on the scheduling of procedural steps.

2.3.1       Collection of data and monitoring, analysis and information

2.3.1     Collection of data and monitoring

Guideline 6: “The court managers should collect information on the most important steps in the judicial process. They should keep records regarding the duration between these steps. In respect to the steps monitored, due regard should be given to the Time management Checklist, Indicator Four”.

Guideline 5: “The monitoring should make sure that the periods of inactivity (waiting time) in the judicial proceeding are not excessively long, and wherever such extended periods exist, particular efforts have to be made in order to speed up the proceeding and compensate for the delay”.

Continuing analysis

Guideline 8: “All information collected should be continually analysed and used for the purposes of monitoring and improvement of performance.”

Information

Guideline 7: “The information collected should be available, to inform the work of court administrators, judges and the central authorities responsible for the administration of justice. In appropriate form, the information should also be made available to the parties and the general public.”

Guideline 9: “The reports on the results of analysis should be produced at regular intervals, at least once a year, with appropriate recommendations.”

Guideline 4: “Particular attention should be given to the cases where integral duration is such that it may give rise to the finding of the violation of the human right to a trial within reasonable time.”

a)             Overall description of the situation in the court

The figures provided by the Court indicate that the court is able to collect the data and to have the necessary monitoring. The President of the Court, whose previous office was as inspector of courts in the Ministry of Justice, possesses every qualification for analysing the available data, particularly statistics, in an appropriate manner.

The general assembly’s report forms a detailed record of the work carried out during the year. It is transmitted notably to the Ministry of Justice and Freedoms and to the Chairman of the Bar.

Concerning publication of the Court’s case law, the President of the Court would like to publish the Court’s judgments and has lodged a corresponding request with the Ministry of Justice for this authority to publish all the judgments in an anonymised form, in so far as the statutory provisions on data protection so require. In the past the court published part of the judgements delivered on its website. At present, the private sites and that of a firm of lawyers publish a selection of Court decisions.

b)                 Conclusion and possible recommendations

The improvement of the court’s situation (drastic decrease in the number of cases pending) shows that the President not only has a good overall perception of the load and the nature of the cases handled in his court, but moreover has been able to take the requisite measures to improve matters and to stay on course in future.

Recommendation 3: Publication of the activity report

With the aim of achieving better transparency of justice, publication (for example on the Internet) of the activity report (or of excerpts from the principal parts) should be envisaged.

2.3.2       Planning, setting targets and intervention

Planning at a general level and at that of concrete proceedings

Guideline 1: “The length of judicial proceedings should be planned at the general level (planning of average/mean duration of particular types of cases, or average/mean duration of process before certain types of courts) or at the level of concrete proceedings”.

Definition of objectives

Guideline 10: “In addition to the standards and targets set at the higher level (national, regional), there should be specific targets at the level of individual courts. The court managers should have sufficient authorities and autonomy to actively set or participate in setting of these targets.”

Guideline 11: “The targets should clearly define the objectives and be achievable. They should be published and subject to periodical re-evaluation.”

Intervention

Guideline 12: “The targets may be used in the evaluation of the court performance. If they are not achieved, the concrete steps and actions have to be taken to remedy the situation.”

Guideline 3: “If departures from standards and targets for judicial timeframes are being observed or foreseen, prompt actions should be taken in order to remedy the causes of such departures.”

Guideline 13: “ In the situations where there is a significant departure from the targets set at the court level, there should be specific means to rapidly and adequately address the cause of the problem.”

a)     Overall description of the situation in the court

Deadlines for dealing with cases according to types of procedure are set in the law and constitute general targets according to type of case.

The concrete targets to be achieved are set on the occasion of the general assembly, consisting for example in a number of cases (600) to be completed the following year in order to reduce the backlog of cases.

The President has the instruments enabling him to intervene in order to take the measures to solve the problems or alert the Ministry of Justice and Freedoms. In previous years, the Ministry of Justice and Freedoms has already appointed judges for a limited time and for the benefit of a court in order to reduce an outsized backlog speedily (cyclical problem), in a court which was furthermore resolved to decide a number of cases equivalent to the number of new cases.

b)    Conclusion and possible recommendations

In conclusion, the Court has the means to diagnose any departures from the targets for timeframes. For its part, the Ministry of Justice is in a position to intervene where the problem that might occur cannot be independently resolved by the court itself while optimising its organisation.

Recommendation 4:

a)      Continue prioritising and processing cases as at present.

b)      Study in collaboration with the Ministry of Justice the extent to which alerts, differentiated according to type of case and built into the file management application, could warn about a risk of exceeding prescribed deadlines.

2.3.3       Consultation on the scheduling of procedural steps

Guideline 2: “The users are entitled to be consulted in the time management of the judicial process and in setting the dates or estimating the timing of all future procedural steps.”

Guideline 14: “Where possible, the judge should attempt to reach agreement with all participants in the procedure regarding the procedural calendar. For this purpose, he should also be assisted by appropriate court personnel (clerks) and information technology.”

 

Guideline 15: “The deviations from the agreed calendar should be minimal and restricted to justified cases. In principle, the extension of the set time limits should be possible only with the agreement of all parties, or if the interests of justice so require.”

a)     a)   Overall description of the situation in the court

The President of the Court reports that he maintains periodic contacts with the bar associations, the administrations and the judicial officers of the State. The tentative dates (annual schedule) are set in consultation with the parties. Conversely, the firm dates which are set 3-4 weeks ahead are set by the Court of its own motion without consulting the parties. This procedure sometimes causes postponements of hearings. Nor is the date of the first hearing set at the time when the opening memorial is lodged. It happens that the lawyers and parties point out the urgency of a case in specific instances.

b)    Conclusion and possible recommendations

It emerges from the foregoing description that the schedule of procedural steps in the concrete cases is not determined in consultation with the parties or their lawyers.  In a large number of judicial systems, and to the extent that it does not generate undue administrative work, since it averts postponements of hearings and resultant lengthening of the procedure, it may be expedient to fix the hearing dates and the time limits for lodging memorials in consultation with the lawyers and/or the parties.

The Court has examined whether agreements on scheduling of the concrete proceedings would be apt to bring about useful expediting of the handling of cases. According to the President of the Court, such agreements would be counterproductive since in most cases one of the parties (sometimes the administration and sometimes the citizen) has an interest in protracting the proceedings, and would result in longer times than at present for scheduling the next step. Indeed, these are set by compulsorily by the judge and postponements are only restrictively granted. Agreements on scheduling of procedural steps could only be contemplated for certain specific types of litigation.

Recommendation 5: Introduction of agreements on scheduling of procedural steps

The Court is invited to conclude agreements on scheduling of procedural steps in the types of litigation for which this could bring about a reduction in the length of proceedings.

3. FINAL OBSERVATIONS

3.1 Assessment of the degree of implementation of the guidelines

Degree of implementation	Implemented	Partly implemented	Not implemented
Number of guidelines	10	2	3

The partly implemented guidelines are those relating to publication of the Court’s activity report (No. 7) and to setting of targets according to type of cases (Nos. 10 and 11).

The following similar guidelines are not implemented (Nos. 2, 14 and 15) where agreements on the scheduling of procedural steps are concerned.

3.2 Synopsis of the recommendations

Recommendation 3: Publication of the activity report

In order to achieve better transparency of justice, publication (for example on the Internet) of the activity report (or of excerpts from the principal parts) should be envisaged.

Recommendation 4:

a)     Continue prioritising and processing cases as at present.

b)      Study in collaboration with the Ministry of Justice the extent to which alerts, differentiated according to type of case and built into the file management application, could warn about a risk of exceeding prescribed deadlines.

Recommendation 5: Introduction of agreements on scheduling of procedural steps

The Court is invited to conclude agreements on scheduling of procedural steps in the types of litigation for which this could bring about a reduction in the length of proceedings.

Recommendation 6:

The Court is invited to consider the expediency of introducing a table of internal targets on the pattern of the one produced for the Court of B.___ (see Appendix 1).

 

REPORT CONCERNING THE CHECKLIST ON THE QUALITY OF JUSTICE

2.         DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PROCESS OF SELECTING CEPEJ TOOLS FOR IMPLEMENTATION

     

2.1 Persons responsible for applying the Quality Check-List

Mr Xxx YYY, President of the Court

2.2 Description of the process of completing the Check-List (participating entities, meetings, etc.):

During its sixth visit and specifically on 22 April 2015, a CEPEJ delegation had talks with the president of the court and with the magistrates and the chief court registrar. The exchanges which took place on that occasion made it possible to obtain indications regarding different provisions of the Checklist and to prepare a draft report on its degree of fulfilment in the Court.

2.3 Principal conclusions for the 5 chapters of the Check-List

STRATEGY and POLICY

2.3.1 Chapter I.

2.3.1.1. Sub-chapter: I.1. Allocation of cases and delegation of the judges’ responsibilities to non-judge staff

As stated earlier under 1.6, the law assigns the president competence to apportion the cases among the judges. In so doing, he nonetheless takes account of the judges’ different specialisations acquired over time, the importance of the case, or the similarities with cases already allocated, which the registry brings to his attention. The president tries to apportion the cases equitably, taking account of each magistrate’s workload.

Where summary applications are concerned, Mr YYY has personally ruled on 8000 cases, in accordance with the relevant legislative provisions stipulating that summary applications are an exclusive prerogative of the president of the court. As stated above, this task has been facilitated by the use of standard recitals (the cases often being repetitive) and by the support of the registry staff, particularly as regards formulation of the facts. Where it is impossible for Mr YYY to rule, his substitute has taken it upon himself to do so.

The President of the Court intuitively carries out weighting of the cases assigned to the judges of his Court. He finds that the judges who consider themselves more heavily burdened than their colleagues come and complain of their own accord. Furthermore, he takes the view that the designation of the judge is a prerogative of the president and he deems it wise for this to remain in the president’s gift and not be assigned, for example, to a registry official. Indeed, the registry staff might be more open to wrongful attempts to influence the choice of the judge.

Principal conclusions:

In the light of the foregoing, this item of the Checklist is fulfilled. In order to relieve the President of the Court, the legislator might nonetheless consider introducing legislative provisions also enabling other judges to rule on summary applications.

2.3.2 Chapter II. “JOB” and OPERATIONAL PROCESS

2.3.2.1. Sub- chapter: II.1. Procedures in courts

As stated above, the president takes care to ensure an equitable and effective distribution of the workload among the judges. He also takes into account the judge’s specialisation and the importance of the case in order to ensure matching between the judges’ competences and the case files assigned to them. These are distributed transparently, according to indications from the registry (where cases are similar to those dealt with earlier by the judge) or to the purview of the sections. The law determines whether the cases should be entertained by a single judge (summary applications for example) or by a panel of three judges (generally for more complex legal questions).

In the light of the foregoing, this sub-chapter of the Checklist is fulfilled.

2.3.2.2. Sub-chapter: II.2. Management of cases

Concerning management and monitoring of the volume of cases, see below the part on times for disposing of cases.

Although mediation is possible in respect of taxes, at the level of the regional and national commissions, the President reported that the alternative dispute resolution methods did not function effectively and the parties always ended up going to court. Indeed, where the mediator is called upon, the law does not provide for suspension of the procedural deadlines until the outcome of the mediation is known. Nor can the mediator intervene if a dispute is pending.

In the light of the foregoing, this chapter is only partly fulfilled.

Recommendation 7: Provide for alternative procedures to settle disputes, capable of relieving courts of this type

a) The Court is invited to transmit to the Ministry of Justice proposals enabling the parties to avail themselves of an alternative method of settlement of litigation in their disputes with the administrative authorities, so that part of the litigation is terminated before the Court needs to examine and determine these cases.

b) The Ministry of Justice is invited to introduce an effective system for alternative settlement of litigation.

2.3.2.3. Sub-chapter: II.3. Management of hearings

There is only one court room. The date of the first hearing is generally set within three or four weeks after the appointment of the reporting judge. The lawyers may say whether the case is urgent and should receive priority handling. At all events, the hearings are not arranged jointly with the parties.

A good practice established by the president of the court consists in the regular organisation of meetings with the bar associations to confer about the annual scheduling of procedural steps.

The times of hearings are determined at the general assembly, but some flexibility can be ensured according to the expectations of those involved.

Recommendation 5 can be reiterated for this item:

Recommendation 5: Introduction of agreements on scheduling of procedural steps

The Court is invited to conclude agreements on scheduling of procedural steps in the types of litigation for which this could bring about a reduction in the length of proceedings.

2.3.2.4. Sub-chapter: II.4. Execution of judicial decisions

The law provides that the party winning the case must ask for the judgment to the notified to the other party, and must do so within 30 days. Only electoral litigation cases are notified as a matter of course. Once the party requests execution of the judgment, the President and the judge responsible for following up enforcement see to the monitoring of the case file.

A round table on notification of the decisions of courts of this type took place in April 2015. Following the round table, the Head of Government published an instruction requiring that decisions of courts of this type be executed by the administration or the central bank. Moreover, there is a plan for the Ministry of Justice and Freedoms to arrange a congress in January 2016, bringing together the administrative entities concerned, on the theme of “Execution of the decisions taken against the authorities”. The upshot is a certain alertness of the administrative authorities to the binding force of the decisions of courts of this type.

Recommendation 8: Improve the execution of decisions of courts of this type

The Ministry of Justice is invited, in collaboration with representatives of courts of this type, to examine how execution of the decisions of courts of this type can be simplified; this study should also include proposals for making up deferrals of execution (decisions having acquired res judicata force whose execution has been requested, but which the authorities do not execute for want of budgetary resources)

2.3.2.5. Sub-chapter: II.5. Partners of justice

The court has set up an effective system for verifying the quality of experts, chosen according to their integrity and competence, and regularly consulted by email or telephone. The effect of this is that in most instances, expert testimonies are delivered within a month and a half. In the event of delay in delivery of the testimony, co-ordination is carried out with the Ministry of Justice directorate of civil cases: the defaulting experts are reported and threatened with striking-off. It also happens that they are given no further assignments for a certain time.

The Court has cases before it in which delays are caused by expert testimonies delivered after the set deadlines.

In the light of the foregoing, this sub-chapter of the Checklist is partly fulfilled.

Recommendation 9: Improvement to management of experts

The Court is invited to examine whether the implementation of the guidelines on the role of court-appointed experts in judicial proceedings in Council of Europe member states, approved by the December 2014 plenary meeting of the CEPEJ, would not help improve the management of experts and, through its implementation, avert extension of the times for dealing with cases.

Paragraphs 124-127 provide in particular that:

“If the expert does not complete his expert opinion within the stipulated time, it should be possible to impose a fine on him/her. In very severe cases of breach of duty, it should be possible to withdraw the expert from the appointment.

However, there are no effects on the probative value of the assessment if the expert hands it in behind schedule but remains to be appointed for the production of the expert opinion.

Also, it must possible for the court to reduce the payment in very severe cases where the expert is to blame for the delay.

In all eventualities the court should have control over the deadlines that were given to the expert”.

2.3.2.6. Sub-chapter: II.6. Evaluation of performance

The president sees to the monitoring of each judge’s performance in both quantitative and qualitative terms, in accordance with the policy on evaluation of magistrates laid down by the Ministry of Justice. He evaluates output, compliance with procedure and quality of judgments, which he reads personally. As regards the quality of judgments, he looks at the textual clarity as well as the legal reasoning and the references to case law and/or authoritative opinion.

Each judge has access to the information concerning his own office, those of his colleagues, and the figures on the court as a whole as these are made public at the general assembly. Besides, during it targets are set for reducing the backlog of cases.

In the light of the foregoing, this sub-chapter of the Checklist is fulfilled.

2.3.4       Chapter III. ACCESS TO JUSTICE, COMMUNICATION TO CITIZENS and PUBLIC

2.3.3.1. Sub-chapter: III.1. Access to legal and court information

There are no staff specifically responsible for reception in the court. The Commissioner can nevertheless give citizens information on the rules of procedure. Leaflets are also available in four languages. The court also has an email address for sending comments and observations on its activity, but in general they are rare.

The decisions made public are available the same day on the court’s website.

In the light of the foregoing, this sub-chapter of the Checklist is fulfilled.

2.3.3.4. Sub-chapter: III.4. Presentation of decisions

As stated above in Sub-chapter: II.6. Evaluation of performance, the President monitors the quality of the decision and ensures that it is drafted comprehensibly and validly as regards both form (comprehension by the person before the court) and substance (references to authoritative legal opinion and case law, sometimes even foreign case law).

“Standard” decisions and rules are used for given types of cases (eg cases under summary procedure).

No precise items for III. 4. 1, 2.

2.3.3.5. Sub-chapters: III.5. Legitimacy and public trust and: III.6. Evaluation

A detailed report in the court’s activities is presented at the general assembly and shared with other judicial bodies and the bar associations. The court moreover has regular contacts with the press.

As stated above under chapter II. 3, a good practice established by the president of the court consists in the regular organisation of meetings with the bar associations to confer about the annual scheduling of procedural steps.

As stated above under chapter III. 1, the Royal Commissioner can give citizens information on the rules of procedure.

The court has never conducted public satisfaction surveys but is open to this possibility.

In the light of the foregoing, this sub-chapter of the Checklist is partly fulfilled.

Recommendation 10: Conduct of satisfaction surveys at an opportune time

The Court is invited to conduct at regular intervals satisfaction surveys directed at the users of the Court and lawyers as soon as the justice reform in progress has been completed, in order to ascertain how users and lawyers perceive targeted services of the Court.

2.3.4 Chapter IV. HUMAN RESOURCES and STATUS OF THE JUDICIARY and STAFF

2.3.4.1. Sub-chapter: IV.1. Human resources policy

The criteria for assessing magistrates’ performance are settled by law and applied by the President of the Court.

Pending new legislative provisions on evaluation of magistrates, the criteria for evaluation and promotion to the various grades (from judicial assistant to the exceptional grade) and allowing progression through the steps within 1-3 years for each step depending on performance, are as follows (basis, Law of 11.11.1974 and decree 32 du 23.11.1974): seniority, diplomas, quality of judgments, number of judgments delivered and management of cases (number of old cases), conduct with the parties, in hearings, with colleagues and the President of the court. These criteria are laid down by the Judicial Service Commission - Conseil supérieur de la magistrature (CSM).

There are three types of promotion: rapid (after 1 year), normal (every 3 years), late (every 4 years). The President recommends one of these three promotions.

The annual evaluation interview for a magistrate is not adversarial and magistrates do not have access to their evaluation forms.

Recommendation 11: Transparent evaluation of magistrates

Under the current justice reform, the Ministry of Justice is invited to establish a more transparent process of evaluating magistrates’ performance, particularly by giving them access to their evaluation and enabling them to take up a position on it according to a procedure clearly defined in advance. See in this connection: Opinion No. 17 (2014)of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) on the evaluation of judges' work, the quality of justice and respect for judicial independence.

2.3.4.2. Sub-chapter: IV.2. Training and development of competencies

The general assembly is held once a year and represents an important occasion for judges to exchange views on, inter alia, court decisions and judicial questions.

In the light of the foregoing, this point of the Checklist is fulfilled.

2.3.4.4. Sub-chapter: IV.4. Evaluation of the human resources policy

See the considerations set out in sub-chapter: III.6. Evaluation.

2.3.5 Chapter V. MeAns OF Justice

2.3.5.1. Sub-chapter: V.1. Logistics and security

The infrastructure does not fulfil the court’s needs. Three courts share the building. There are not enough offices for the judges and registrars, and a single court room dedicated to the sole use of the Court. Where offices are concerned, all available rooms are occupied (libraries, etc.) and many registry staff work in them. It is not uncommon for a clerk to have barely more than a square metre of working space. Regarding the court rooms, according to the President of the Court, pooling the rooms with the other two courts which occupy the courthouse is not conceivable because as a rule the other courts occupy their rooms every day.

The Commercial Court, which was to move into a new building, was unable to set up there because the building was allocated to departments of the Ministry of Justice and Freedoms. For the time being, no construction of any other building is planned according to the President of the Court. Consequently, the problems over premises and court rooms are nowhere near being solved.

Self-service kiosks enabling the parties to consult their file are available in the confines of the court.

Recommendation 1: Adequate premises and sufficient court rooms

1a) In so far as it has not already done so, the Court is invited to send the Ministry of Justice a catalogue of its needs for premises, particularly as regards offices and court rooms.

1b) The Ministry of Justice is invited to resolve with all possible speed the problems regarding premises and court rooms for the Court of A____.

3. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS OF THE EVALUATION OF THE QUALITY OF THE COURT’S SERVICES

3.1 Assessment of the degree of implementation of the measures identified

Degree of implementation	Implemented	Partly implemented	Not implemented
Number of measures	7	7	0

The following aspects are partly implemented:

-       Lack of effectiveness of alternative methods for settling litigation

-       Lack of agreement on the scheduling of steps in the concrete proceedings

-       Lack of effectiveness of execution of the decisions of courts of this type

-       Potential for improvement in the management of experts

-       Absence of satisfaction surveys among users and lawyers

-       Lack of transparency in the evaluation of magistrates

-       Lack of premises

3.2 Proposed recommendations

To improve the situation regarding the aspects listed above, the following recommendations are formulated.

Recommendation 7: Provide for alternative procedures to settle disputes, capable of relieving courts of this type

a) The Court is invited to transmit to the Ministry of Justice proposals enabling the parties to avail themselves of an alternative method of settlement of litigation in their disputes with the administrative authorities, so that part of the litigation is terminated before the Court needs to examine and determine these cases.

b) The Ministry of Justice is invited to introduce an effective system for alternative settlement of litigation.

To improve the situation regarding the aspects listed above, the following recommendations are formulated.

Recommendation 5: Introduction of agreements on scheduling of procedural steps

The Court is invited to conclude agreements on scheduling of procedural steps in the types of litigation for which this could bring about a reduction in the length of proceedings.

Recommendation 8: Improve the execution of decisions of courts of this type

The Ministry of Justice and Freedoms is invited, in collaboration with representatives of courts of this type, to examine how execution of the decisions of courts of this type can be simplified; this study should also include proposals for making up deferrals of execution (decisions having acquired res judicata force whose execution has been requested, but which the authorities do not execute for want of budgetary resources).

Recommendation 9: Improvement to management of experts

The Court is invited to examine whether the implementation of the guidelines on the role of court-appointed experts in judicial proceedings in Council of Europe member states, approved by the December 2014 plenary meeting of the CEPEJ, would not help improve the management of experts and, through its implementation, avert extension of the times for dealing with cases..

Recommendation 10: Conduct of surveys at an opportune time

The Court is invited to conduct at regular intervals satisfaction surveys directed at the users of the Court and lawyers as soon as the justice reform in progress has been completed, in order to ascertain how users and lawyers perceive targeted services of the Court..

Recommendation 11: Transparent evaluation of magistrates

Under the current justice reform, the Ministry of Justice is invited to establish a more transparent process of evaluating magistrates’ performance, particularly by giving them access to their evaluation and enabling them to take up a position on it according to a procedure clearly defined in advance. See in this connection: Opinion No. 17 (2014)of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) on the evaluation of judges' work, the quality of justice and respect for judicial independence

.

Recommendation 1: Adequate premises and sufficient court rooms

1a) Insofar as it has not already done so, the Court is invited to send the Ministry of Justice a catalogue of its needs for premises, particularly as regards offices and court rooms.

1b) The Ministry of Justice is invited to resolve with all possible speed the problems regarding premises and court rooms for the Court of A____.

3. SUBSEQUENT WORK

An initial version of this report was discussed on X October 2015 with the President of the Court of A____. The upshot is that the problem of premises is the most urgent problem to solve for this court. Consequently, recommendation 1 is the one which will be implemented first by the Court (presenting the Ministry of Justice with a catalogue of its needs for premises).

In this context, the CEPEJ experts learned from the President of the Court of Appeal of A___ that this court was soon to benefit from a new courthouse. The future allocation of the present building of the Court of Appeal of A____ is unknown. The CEPEJ experts would like to be informed of the possibilities for moving out one or two of the three courts which currently occupy the same building as the Court of A_____ . More generally, they would be very glad to be informed about the way in which the Ministry of Justice and Freedoms intends to solve the very real problems of the Court of A____ regarding premises.

During the next mission at the latest, the experts will again confer with the President of the Court of A____ to review the various recommendations, particularly to ascertain with him whether alerting the administrative authorities has helped to improve matters regarding execution of the decisions of courts of this type.

Lastly, the CEPEJ experts will also confer with representatives of the Ministry of Justice and Freedoms to find out their intentions regarding publication of the judgments of courts. Modernisation of the computer application affords the opportunity to place at the disposal of courts a platform for publication of judgments and a module for anonymising them.

___________________________

Annex (a): Example of targets for administrative court

Annex (a): Example of targets for courts of this type

Administrative cases: targets for 2014 regarding timeframes for disposing of proceedings (draft v.0)

				Clearance Rate			Length of proceedings
Section	Cases pending at 31/12/2012	CR 2012%	DT 2012 no. of days	CR of cases introduced during the year 1)	CR of cases introduced earlier 2)	CR 2014 3)	0-6 months	0-12 months	0-24 months	0-36 months
Urgent procedures	16	105	11
Summary	16	111	25	90%	100%	>100%	100%
Orders on application	0	100		90%	100%	>100%	100%
Relinquishments – judgments	0	100		90%	100%	>100%	100%
Applications to set aside	162	89	265
Applications to set aside for abuse of authority	158	87	299	40%	100%	>100%	30%	80%	100%
Stay of execution of administrative decisions	4	100	49	80%	100%	>100%	90%	100%

1) CR of cases introduced during the year: correlation between the number of cases introduced in 2014 and the percentage of these to be completed in 2014

2) CR of cases introduced earlier: correlation between the number of cases pending at the start of the year and the percentage of these to be completed in 2014

3) CR: correlation between the number of cases introduced in 2014 and the number of cases completed in 2014

Appendix 3: Template for the evaluation of the implementation degree of the SATURN preferential Guidelines

Implementation degrees:

0. not implemented at all;
1. not implemented so far, but implementation is already planned
2. partially implemented;
3. fully implemented;
4. not implemented as such, but there is another practice / procedure which enables to achieve the same result;

Nb of the Guideline	Guidelines	Implementation					Observations Comments
		0	1	2	3	4
	Objective
1	Particular attention should be given to the cases where integral duration is such that it may give rise to the finding of the violation of the human right to a trial within reasonable time. (Guideline III.C.2 of document CEPEJ(2008)8).
A	Monitoring of data, analysis and information
2	Monitoring and collection of data The court managers should collect information on the most important steps in the judicial process. They should keep records regarding the duration between these steps. In respect to the steps monitored, due regard should be given to the Time management Checklist, Indicator Four.(Guideline IV.A.1 of document CEPEJ(2008)8).
3	Monitoring and collection of data The monitoring should make sure that the periods of inactivity (waiting time) in the judicial proceeding are not excessively long, and wherever such extended periods exist, particular efforts have to be made in order to speed up the proceeding and compensate for the delay. (Guideline III.C.3 of document CEPEJ(2008)8).
4	Continuing Analysis Guideline 4 All information collected should be continually analysed and used for the purposes of monitoring and improvement of performance. (Guideline IV.B.1 of document CEPEJ(2008)8).
5	Information The information collected should be available, to inform the work of court administrators, judges and the central authorities responsible for the administration of justice. In appropriate form, the information should also be made available to the parties and the general public.(Guideline IV.A.2 of document CEPEJ(2008)8).
6	Information The reports on the results of analysis should be produced at regular intervals, at least once a year, with appropriate recommendations. (Guideline IV.B.3 of document CEPEJ(2008)8).
B	Planning, setting targets and intervention
7	Planning at a general level The length of judicial proceedings should be planned at the general level (planning of average/mean duration of particular types of cases, or average/mean duration of process before certain types of courts)(…) . (Guideline I.C.1 of document CEPEJ(2008)8).
8	Planning at the level of concrete proceedings The length of judicial proceedings should be planned (…) at the level of concrete proceedings. (Guideline I.C.1 of document CEPEJ(2008)8).
9	Setting targets In addition to the standards and targets set at the higher level (national, regional), there should be specific targets at the level of individual courts. The court managers should have sufficient authorities and autonomy to actively set or participate in setting of these targets. (Guideline IV.C.1 of document CEPEJ(2008)8).
10	Setting targets The targets should clearly define the objectives and be achievable. They should be published and subject to periodical re-evaluation. (Guideline IV.C.2 of document CEPEJ(2008)8).
11	Intervention The targets may be used in the evaluation of the court performance. If they are not achieved, the concrete steps and actions have to be taken to remedy the situation. (Guideline IV.C.3 of document CEPEJ(2008)8).
12	Intervention If departures from standards and targets for judicial timeframes are being observed or foreseen, prompt actions should be taken in order to remedy the causes of such departures. (Guideline III.C.1 of document CEPEJ(2008)8).
13	Intervention In the situations where there is a significant departure from the targets set at the court level, there should be specific means to rapidly and adequately address the cause of the problem. (Guideline IV.D.1 of document CEPEJ(2008)8).
C	Consultation on the scheduling of procedural steps
14	The users are entitled to be consulted in the time management of the judicial process and in setting the dates or estimating the timing of all future procedural steps. (Guideline I.C.2 of document CEPEJ(2008)8).
15	Where possible, the judge should attempt to reach agreement with all participants in the procedure regarding the procedural calendar. For this purpose, he should also be assisted by appropriate court personnel (clerks) and information technology. (Guideline V.B.2 of document CEPEJ(2008)8).
16	The deviations from the agreed calendar should be minimal and restricted to justified cases. In principle, the extension of the set time limits should be possible only with the agreement of all parties, or if the interests of justice so require. (Guideline V.B.3 of document CEPEJ(2008)8).
TOTAL

Appendix 4: Example of statistics delivered by a court for the court coaching meeting