CEPEJ(2019)2
Strasbourg, 24 January 2019
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
Ad hoc CEPEJ working group entrusted with the harmonisation of the definitions used by CEPEJ
4th meeting
23-24 January 2019
Meeting Report
Document prepared by the Secretariat
Directorate General I – Human Rights and Rule of Law
A. Introduction
1. The ad hoc working group entrusted with the harmonisation of the definitions used by CEPEJ held its 4th meeting in Bologna (Italy).
2. The list of participants is attached in Appendix I to this report.
B. Discussions
3. Following the 3rd meeting of the working group which took place in Paris in September 2018, the draft Glossary (CEPEJ(2018)2PROV5) was submitted to all CEPEJ working groups (CEPEG-GT-EVAL, CEPEJ-GT-QUAL, CEPEJ-GT-MED, SATURN) for comments.
4. These comments have been integrated in the working document (CEPEJ(2018)2PROV6) prepared by the Secretariat for the 4th meeting and transmitted to the experts of the ad hoc working group.
5. The ad hoc working group is therefore continuing the discussions held at its first three meetings, following the same methodology of examining each definition.
6. The group is also devising, when it deems it relevant, in the frame of this Glossary, certain definitions suggested by the different CEPEJ working groups.
7. A new document (CEPEJ(2018)2PROV8), containing nearly 70 definitions, is prepared by the ad hoc working group (see appendix II).
8. The working group warmly thanks Marco Fabri for his excellent welcome and the perfect organisationof this meeting.
Appendix I: List of Participants / Liste des participants
Joao ARSENIO DE OLIVEIRA, Head of Department, International Affairs Department, Directorate General for Justice Policy, Ministry of Justice, Av. D. Joao II, n° 1.08.01 E, Torre H, Pisos 2/3, 1990-097 Lisbon, PORTUGAL
Marco FABRI, Director, Research Institute on Judicial Systems, National Research Council (IRSIG-CNR), Via Zamboni 26, 40126 Bologna, ITALY
Simone KREβ, Vice-President, Landgericht Köln, Luxemburger Str. 101, 50939 Köln, GERMANY, Tel: +49 221 477 2712
Noel RUBOTHAM, Head of Reform and Development, Courts Service, Green Street Courthouse, Halston Street, Dublin, IRELAND
COUNCIL OF EUROPE / CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE
Secretariat
Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law (DG I)
Division for the Independence and Efficiency of Justice/
Direction Générale des Droits de l’Homme et Etat de droit (DG I)
Division pour l’indépendance et l’efficacité de la justice
E-mail: [email protected]
Muriel DECOT, Co-Secretary of the CEPEJ / Co-secrétaire de la CEPEJ, Tél: +33 (0)3 90 21 44 55, e-mail : [email protected]
Christel SCHURRER, Secretary of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL / Secrétaire du CEPEJ-GT-EVAL, Tél : +33 (0)3 90 21 56 97, e-mail: [email protected]
Appendix II: Document CEPEJ(2018)2PROV8
CEPEJ Glossary - DRAFT
ACCESS TO JUSTICE
All the legal and organisational factors and resources (e.g. legal aid, court fees, information) affecting the availability and effectiveness of judicial services.
In the context of cyberjustice, this concept includes means of accessing the law (online information on one’s rights and on the status of court proceedings, publication of case law) and accessing dispute settlement procedures (online granting of legal aid, referral to a court or mediation service).
Related texts:
CEPEJ - Access to justice in Europe / CEPEJ studies No. 9 p13
CEPEJ (2016)13 - Guidelines on how to drive change towards Cyberjustice, 1.1 11 p5.
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR)
Methods, such as arbitration, conciliation, mediation and court annexed mediation to resolve a dispute without recourse to litigation. Some of these methods can be applicable to criminal matters.
· ARBITRATION
Procedure by which the parties select an impartial third person, known as an arbitrator, to determine a dispute between them, and whose decision is binding.
Related texts:
Explanatory note to the Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q163 p29.
· CONCILIATION
Confidential process by which an impartial third person, known as a conciliator, makes a non-binding proposal to the parties for the settlement of a dispute between them.
Related texts:
Explanatory note to the Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q163 p29.
· MEDIATION
Structured and confidential process in which an impartial third person, known as a mediator, assists the parties by facilitating the communication between them for the purpose of resolving issues in dispute.
· COURT-ANNEXED MEDIATION / COURT-RELATED MEDIATION / JUDICIAL MEDIATION
Mediation which is initiated or carried out by a judge or a public prosecutor who facilitates, directs, advises on or conducts the mediation process. Such mediation may be mandatory either as a pre-requisite to the institution of proceedings or as a requirement of the court in the course of the proceedings.
Related texts:
Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q164 p29.
Artificial intelligence for justice
Set of scientific methods, theories and techniques whose aim is to reproduce, by a machine, the cognitive abilities of human beings in the justice context.
AVERAGE (SEE ALSO MEDIAN)
Result obtained by adding two or more amounts and then dividing the total by the number of amounts.
Average is sensitive to extreme values. Average should not be confused with median.
Related texts:
European judicial systems, Efficiency and quality of justice, CEPEJ Studies No. 23, Edition 2016 (2014 data), p10.
BACKLOG (SEE ALSO TIMEFRAME)
Pending cases at the court concerned which have not been resolved within an established timeframe.
For example, if the timeframe has been set at 24 months for all the civil proceedings, the backlog is the number of pending cases that are older than 24 months.
Related texts:
CEPEJ (2016)5 - Towards European Timeframes for Judicial Proceedings - Implementation Guide, Intro p3.
BUDGET
· BUDGET APPROVED
Budget which has been formally authorised by law (e.g. by the Parliament or another competent public authority).
Related texts:
Explanatory note to the Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2018 cycle (, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, p3 and p7.
· BUDGET IMPLEMENTED
Expenditure actually incurred in the reference year.
Related texts:
European judicial systems, Efficiency and quality of justice, CEPEJ Studies No. 23, Edition 2016 (2014 data), p17.
· Judicial system budget (SEE ALSO JUSTICE SYSTEM BUDGET (WHOLE))
Budget allocated to the courts, the public prosecution services and legal aid.
Related texts:
European judicial systems, Efficiency and quality of justice, CEPEJ Studies No. 23, Edition 2016 (2014 data), p17.
· JUSTICE SYSTEM BUDGET (WHOLE) (SEE ALSO JUDICIAL SYSTEM BUDGET)
Budget allocated to the judicial system, and other elements of the justice system such as the budgets for the prison system, probation services, Councils for the Judiciary, the Constitutional Court, the judicial management body, State Advocate office (i.e. the lawyers representing the State’s interests), enforcement services, notaries, forensic services, the judicial protection of juveniles (i.e. the budget referring to youth protection, such as the budget allocated to social workers,), the functioning of the Ministry of Justice, refugees and asylum seekers services, immigration service and even the budget for certain police services (i.e. judicial police, prisoners’ transfer, security in courts, etc.).
Related texts:
European judicial systems, Efficiency and quality of justice, CEPEJ Studies No. 23, Edition 2016 (2014 data), p17.
CASE
Proceedings brought before a court for a determination in a litigious or non-litigious matter, or on a criminal charge.
· COMPLEX CASE
Case which, by virtue of particular attributes (e.g. number of parties, volume of evidence, number and/or complexity of issues in dispute), may require additional time for disposal beyond that which would be expected for an ordinary case within the case category concerned.
Related texts:
CEPEJ (2016)5 - Towards European Timeframes for Judicial Proceedings - Implementation Guide, 2. p5.
· PRIORITY CASE
Case which, by its nature, should be disposed of as quickly as possible, as referred to in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights or at national or local level.
Related texts:
CEPEJ (2016)5 - Towards European Timeframes for Judicial Proceedings - Implementation Guide, 2. p5.
Categories of caseS
· ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE
Dispute, between legal persons (natural or artificial) and public authorities, governed by administrative law.
In some countries, administrative cases are handled by specialised administrative courts and tribunals, while in other countries, such disputes are handled by civil courts of general jurisdiction.
Related texts:
Explanatory note to the Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q91 to 109 p20.
· CIVIL LAW CASE
While the majority of these cases concerns disputes between legal persons governed by private law, there can be no comprehensive definition of a civil case because of the diversity of European judicial systems.
Related texts: Explanatory note to the Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, p3.
· CRIMINAL LAW CASE
Case for which a criminal sanction for the commission of an offence may be imposed, even if this sanction is provided for, in some national systems, in an administrative code (e.g. fines or community service). Such offences may include, in some national systems, minor offences involving anti-social behaviour, public nuisance or traffic offences.
Related texts:
Explanatory note to the scheme for evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q91 to 109 p23
· Litigious case
Case involving a dispute which is determinable by a court.
Related texts:
Explanatory note to the Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q91 to 109 p19.
· NON-LITIGIOUS CASE
Case processed by a court which does not involve the determination of a dispute (e.g. an incontestable application for registration of an interest or entitlement or an uncontested payment order case).
Related texts:
Explanatory note to the Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q91 to 109 p19.
CATEGORIES OF CASE BY CASE STATUS
· INCOMING CASE
Case filed in the court concerned within a defined time period.
Any case which has previously been filed in and is remitted to the same instance level (e.g. after an appeal) should be considered as a new incoming case.
Related texts:
Explanatory note to the Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q91 to 109 p19.
CEPEJ Guidelines (2014)16 E p29.
· PENDING CASE
Case which remains to be resolved by the court concerned at a given point in time (e.g. 1st January).
Related texts:
Explanatory note to the Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q91 to 109 p19.
CEPEJ (2016)5 - Towards European Timeframes for Judicial Proceedings - Implementation Guide, Intro p3.
CEPEJ (2016)12 - Measuring the quality of justice, p8
· PENDING CASE BY AGE
Case which at a given point in time (e.g. on 31st December of the reference year) remains to be resolved, grouped by reference to the length of time which has elapsed since its filing.
|
Case category ……… |
|||||||
|
Pending cases |
0-12 |
13-18 |
19-24 |
25-30 |
31-36 |
Over |
Total pending |
Related texts:
CEPEJ (2016)12 - Measuring the quality of justice, p11.
Guidelines of Timeframe
· RESOLVED CASE
Case which terminated in the court concerned either through a decision by the court, or through any other procedural step which ended the case (e.g. a discontinuance of the case or a settlement) within a defined time period.
Generally, the termination date will be the date of:
- signing or issuing of the judgement,
- approval by the court of a settlement,
- formal discontinuance.
Related texts:
Explanatory note to the Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q91 to 109 p19.
CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CMS)
System, usually electronic, which enables the processing of cases in a court, including features such as case filing, case event scheduling, production of template orders and other documents, and capture, extraction and reporting of caseflow data.
Related texts:
CEPEJ (2016) 13 - Guidelines on how to drive change towards Cyberjustice, 1.4.1 55 p24.
CASEFLOW
Process by which pending cases, incoming cases and resolved cases are dealt with by a court during a given period.
Related texts:
CEPEJ (2016)12 - Measuring the quality of justice, p8.
CASELOAD (SEE ALSO PENDING CASES AND WORKLOAD)
Caseload has the same meaning as the number of pending cases
Related texts:
CEPEJ (2016)5 - Towards European Timeframes for Judicial Proceedings - Implementation Guide, Intro p3.
CLEARANCE RATE (CR)
Ratio obtained by dividing the number of resolved cases by the number of incoming cases in a given period, expressed as a percentage:
Clearance Rate equal to 100 % indicates the ability of the court or of a judicial system to resolve as many cases as the number of incoming cases within the given time period. A Clearance Rate above 100 % indicates the ability of the system to resolve more cases than those received. Finally, a Clearance Rate below 100 % appears when the number of incoming cases is higher than the number of resolved cases. In this case the number of pending cases will increase.
Essentially, the Clearance Rate shows how the court or judicial system is coping with the in-flow of cases.
Related texts:
European judicial systems, Efficiency and quality of justice, CEPEJ Studies No. 23, Edition 2016 (2014 data), p185.
CEPEJ (2008)11, “CEPEJ Guidelines on judicial statistics (GOJUST)”, 5.1 p 12.
COUNCIL FOR THE JUDICIARY
Institution independent of the executive and the legislative powers, existing in certain States, which is responsible for various governance functions in relation to the judiciary. The Council is intended to safeguard the independence of both the judiciary and judges individually. In some States the Council of the Judiciary may also be responsible for prosecutors.
Related texts:
Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE), Opinion No. 10.
Explanatory note to the Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q15.1,15.2,15.3 p7.
Court
Body established by law to exercise the judicial power of the State in civil, administrative and criminal matters.
Related texts:
Explanatory note to the Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, p11.
COURT OF GENERAL JURISDICTION
Court which is competent to adjudicate on all types of proceedings brought at the jurisdictional instance to which that court belongs and which are not to be dealt with before specialised courts owing to the nature of the subject-matter.
Related texts:
Explanatory note to the Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q8 p7.
CYBERJUSTICE
ICT tools used to facilitate the administration of justice.
Broadly understood as grouping together all the situations in which the application of ICT forms part of a dispute resolution process, whether in or out of court.
Related texts:
CEPEJ (2016) 13 - Guidelines on how to drive change towards Cyberjustice, Intro.2 p3
DISPOSITION TIME (DT)(CALCULATED)
Number of pending cases at the end of a year divided by the number of resolved cases within that year, multiplied by 365 (days in a year):
This indicator estimates how many days should be required to resolve the pending cases based on the court’s current capacity to resolve cases. It is used as a forecast of the length of judicial proceedings.
Related texts:
European judicial systems, Efficiency and quality of justice, CEPEJ Studies No. 23, Edition 2016 (2014 data), p185.
CEPEJ (2014)16 - CEPEJ-SATURN – Revised Saturn Guidelines for judicial Time Management (2nd revision), EUGMONT, p 13.
CEPEJ (2008)11, “CEPEJ Guidelines on judicial statistics (GOJUST)”, 5.3 p 12.
DURATION OF PROCEEDINGS
Length of time between the date on which a new case is filed in court and the date on which the case is resolved. This measure may apply to one or more court instances.
Related texts:
CEPEJ (2016)12 - Measuring the quality of justice, p10
EFFICIENCY RATE (ER INDICATOR)
Ratio between the output of a specific activity during a given period and the number of personnel employed in a court who have participated in that activity during that period.
Output (e.g. decisions, proceedings, etc.)
ER = ------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of personnel (who produced that output)
Related texts:
CEPEJ (2014)16 - CEPEJ-SATURN – Revised Saturn Guidelines for judicial Time Management (2nd revision), EUGMONT, p 14.
CEPEJ (2008)11, “CEPEJ Guidelines on judicial statistics (GOJUST)”, 5.1 p 12.
CEPEJ (2016)12 - Measuring the quality of justice, p12.
ENFORCEMENT
· Enforcement
Execution of court decisions, and other judicial or non-judicial enforceable titles, in compliance with the law, including seizure by an enforcement agent of the assets of a judgment debtor which are legally available for seizure.
Related texts:
Enforcement of court decisions in Europe - CEPEJ Studies No. 8 p15
Recommendation Rec(2003) 17 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on enforcement
CEPEJ Guidelines for a better implementation of the existing CoE’s Recommendation on enforcement, CEPEJ(2009)11REV2
Good practice guide on enforcement of judicial decisions, CEPEJ(2015)10
· Enforcement agent
Person authorised by the State to carry out the enforcement process irrespective of whether that person is employed by the State or not.
Related texts:
Recommendation Rec(2003)17 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on enforcement of court decisions.
CEPEJ Studies n°8 – Enforcement of courts decisions in Europe, p16.
Explanatory note to the Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q169 p29.
· ENFORCEMENT COSTS (see also enforcement expenses)
Total of fees and expenses chargeable in the enforcement process.
Related texts:
Enforcement of court decisions in Europe - CEPEJ Studies No. 8 p16
· Enforcement expenses (see also enforcement costs)
Expenses, such as locksmith or security personnel charges, incurred by the enforcement agent in the enforcement process.
Related texts:
Enforcement of court decisions in Europe - CEPEJ Studies No. 8 p16
· ENFORCEMENT FEES
Remuneration of the enforcement agent and other authorities involved in the enforcement process.
· ENFORCEMENT TIME
Time period from commencement to completion of the enforcement process. It is the sum of the periods necessary for the completion of all the actions carried out by the enforcement agent.
Related texts:
Enforcement of court decisions in Europe - CEPEJ Studies No. 8 p16
FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE)
Number of persons working the standard number of hours. The number of persons working part time should be converted to full-time equivalent (e.g. when two people work half the standard number of hours, they count for one "full-time equivalent". One half-time worker should count for 0.5 of a full-time equivalent).
Related texts:
Explanatory note to the Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q55-56 p15.
JUDGE
Member of a court charged with exercising the judicial power of the State in determining civil, administrative and criminal cases.
Related texts:
Explanatory note to the Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q46 à 52 p13.
· Non-professional/lay judge
Person who is not a professional judge, charged with exercising the judicial power of the State. To be distinguished from a juror.
Related texts:
Explanatory note to the Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q49 and 49.1 p14.
· Occasional professional judge
Professional judge who does not perform duties on a permanent basis but who is remunerated for performing functions as a judge.
Related texts:
Explanatory note to the Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q48 and 48.1 p13.
· PROFESSIONAL JUDGE
Judge who has been recruited, trained and appointed to a remunerated judicial position as such.
Related texts:
Explanatory note to the Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q46 and 47 p13.
European judicial systems, Efficiency and quality of justice, CEPEJ Studies No. 23, Edition 2016 (2014 data), p81.
Juror
Lay person who, with co-jurors (collectively a jury), tries issues of fact under guidance of a judge as to the law.
ECHEVINAGE
Composition of a court in circumstances where a case is heard and decided by a panel of professional judges and non-professional judges.
Related texts:
Explanatory note to the Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q49 and 49.1 p14.
EXPERTS
· JUDICIAL EXPERT
Person, appointed by the court, holding expertise in a particular area on which evidence may require to be given in court. The role and function of experts are very different depending on their function under the procedure, which varies especially between continental and common law systems.
· EXPERT WITNESS
Person who is requested by the parties to give evidence based on their expertise.
· TECHNICAL EXPERT/ASSESSOR
Person whose scientific and technical knowledge on issues of fact (e.g. in forensic medicine, psychiatry, criminal sciences, biology, architecture, arts) is available to the judge.
Related texts:
Explanatory note to the Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q202, p32.
Guidelines on the role of court-appointed experts in judicial proceedings of Council of Europe’s Member States, CEPEJ (2014)4
JUDICIAL MAP
Distribution of court instances and network of court venues within a State.
Related texts:
CEPEJ (2013)7 – Guidelines on the creation of judicial maps to support access to justice within a quality judicial system, 1.3 p4.
JUDICIAL/LEGAL COSTS
Total costs of legal proceedings and other services related to the case payable by the parties during the proceedings (taxes, legal advice, legal representation, travel expenses, etc).
Related texts:
Explanatory note to the Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q27 p9.
LAWYER
Person qualified and authorised according to national law to plead and act on behalf of his/her clients, to engage in the practice of law, to appear before the courts or advise and represent his/her clients in legal matters.
Related texts:
Recommendation Rec(2000)21 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the freedom of exercise of the profession of lawyer.
Explanatory note to the Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q146 and 149.1 p28.
European judicial systems, Efficiency and quality of justice, CEPEJ Studies No. 23, Edition 2016 (2014 data), p158.
Handbook for conducting satisfaction surveys aimed at court users in Council of Europe Member States, CEPEJ (2016)15, 3.2 p7.
Legal advisor
Legal professional who gives legal advice and prepares legal documents but does not have the competence to represent clients before the courts.
Related texts:
Explanatory note to the Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q147 and 148 p28
LEGAL AID
Assistance to certain categories of persons in the form of State- funded legal advice and/or representation.
Related texts:
Resolution Res(78)8 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on Legal Aid and Advice.
Explanatory note to the Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, p9.
CEPEJ - Access to justice in Europe / CEPEJ studies No. 9 p13
MEDIAN (SEE ALSO AVERAGE)
Value that divides the data set concerned into two equal groups so that 50% of the numbers are above this value and 50% are below it.
Median is sometimes more appropriate to use than the average, as it is less sensitive to extreme values. Should not be confused with average.
Related texts:
European judicial systems, Efficiency and quality of justice, CEPEJ Studies No. 23, Edition 2016 (2014 data), p10.
NOTARY
Professional public office-holder who on behalf of the State ensures the control of legality according to the will of the parties and the law and guarantees the authenticity of the acts in which he/she intervenes.
Related texts:
Explanatory note to the Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q192 p31.
Offence
Any act or omission that infringes the law and attracts a criminal sanction such as a sentence of imprisonment or fine and is dealt with by a court exercising criminal jurisdiction (or, where the national legal order provides, any other judicial or administrative authority).
Related texts:
CCPE Opinion No. 5 (2010) p3
PROCEDURAL DEADLINE OR TIME LIMIT
Time period for the taking of a step in a court case established by the procedural law and entailing legal consequences in the event of non-compliance.
Related texts:
Towards European Timeframes for Judicial Proceedings - Implementation Guide, p2
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Public officer who, on behalf of society and in the public interest, ensures the application of the law and conducts prosecutions where the breach of the law carries a criminal sanction, taking into account both the rights of the individual and the necessary effectiveness of the criminal justice system.
In certain member States, public prosecutors also exercise competences in civil, administrative, commercial and labour law.
Related texts:
Recommendation Rec(2000)19 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the role of public prosecution in the criminal justice system.
Recommendation Rec(2012)11 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the role of public prosecutors outside the criminal justice system
Explanatory note to the Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q13 p7.
European judicial systems, Efficiency and quality of justice, CEPEJ Studies No. 23, Edition 2016 (2014 data), p17.
CCPE Opinion No.9 (2014) p1
QUALITY OF JUSTICE
Comprises not only the quality of judicial decisions and key aspects of judicial service delivery, but also all other assessable aspects that are relevant for the good functioning of the justice system.
Related texts:
CEPEJ (2016)12 - Measuring the quality of justice, p4.
RECHTSPFLEGER
Independent judicial officer performing the tasks assigned by law who is not a judicial assistant, but works in conjunction with the court and may carry out legal tasks in various areas, e.g. family law and guardianship law, law of succession, and the law on the land register and commercial registers; in some States, may also have competence to make judicial decisions independently such as on the granting of nationality, payment orders, execution of court decisions, auctions of immovable goods, criminal cases, and enforcement of judgements in criminal matters, reduced sentencing by way of community service, prosecution in district courts, decisions concerning legal aid, etc.; in some States may also be competent to undertake administrative judicial tasks.
Related texts:
European judicial systems, Efficiency and quality of justice, CEPEJ Studies No. 23, Edition 2016 (2014 data), p146.
Explanatory note to the Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q52 p14.
Structural measures adopted by some Council of Europe member States to improve the functioning of civil and administrative justice. In addition to the effective domestic remedies required by Article 13 of the ECHR - Good practice guide, 50 p10, CEPEJ(2016)14
Satisfaction survey (FOR COURT)
Survey measuring the extent to which a court activity or service meets a specific target group’s expectations.
Related texts:
Handbook for conducting satisfaction surveys aimed at court users in Council of Europe Member States, CEPEJ (2016)15.
SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE
Shortened and expedited form of court proceedings in civil disputes and criminal matters.
SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURE
Simplified procedure designed for the resolution of claims of limited value as defined by law.
Related texts:
Explanatory note to the Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q45,45.1,45.2 p13.
TIMEFRAME (JUDICIAL) / JUDICIAL TIMEFRAME (SEE ALSO BACKLOG)
Established period of time within which cases are expected to be resolved.
Timeframes should not be confused with procedural deadlines or time limits, which apply to individual cases.
Related texts:
CEPEJ (2016)5 - Towards European Timeframes for Judicial Proceedings - Implementation Guide, Intro p3.
WAITING TIME
Time during which no activity takes place within a procedure (e.g. because the judge is waiting for an expert’s report).
Related texts:
Explanatory note to the Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems 2016-2017 cycle, CEPEJ(2017)3rev, Q72p17.
WORKLOAD (COURT)
Totality of the court activities required to be carried out (e.g. caseload, management duties, any other activity that is part of the work of the court, judge, public prosecution service, or non-judge staff).
Related texts:
CEPEJ (2016)5 - Towards European Timeframes for Judicial Proceedings - Implementation Guide, Intro p3.