te0400214

E10300COLEU30E4903

Strasbourg, le 28 Jjanuaviery10 February27 October 2004                         CCJE (2004) 331

[ccje2004/docs/ccje (2004) 331 e]

CCONSULTATIVE COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN JUDGESONSEIL CONSULTATIF DE JUGES EUROPEENS

(CCJECONSULTATIVE COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN JUDGES

(CCJE)

QUESTIONNAIRES

ON CASE MANAGEMENT, JUDGES' ROLE IN TRIALS, AND THE USE OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION METHODS

OBSERVATIONS PRELIMINAIRY REMARKSEXPLANATORY NOTE

ANDET

QUESTIONNAIRE

OMN MANARELATIFS A LA GEMENSTI OFN  CADES AFFAIREES, LE RÔLE DES JUDGES’ ROLE INDANS THLE PROCEEDINGS, AND ET L’USAGE OFDES MODES ALTERNATIVFS DE DISPUTE SRETTGLEMENT METHODSTHE THEME

“JUSTICE AND SOCIETY”DES LITIGES

preépared byés par

thele ChaiPr of thésident du CCJE and the Chait le Prr of thésident du  CCJEGT


A.     INTRODUCTION

1.         At its meeting of 26-28 November 2003, the CCJE asked the Working Party Chair to draft a questionnaires on the topics for consideration in 2004:

i.                 case management (see Part II e of the framework global action plan for judges in Europe);

ii.                judges' role in trials (see Part III C a of the action plan;

iii.               the use of alternative dispute resolution methods;

2.         In accordance with the CCJE’s request, the Chair of the CCJE-GT, in conjunction with the Chair of the CCJE, has drafted the questionnaires in order to gather the relevant information summarising national positions vis-à-vis the topics concerned.

3.         This document contains the questionnaires on the topics referred to under A 1 i, ii and iii above as they have been approved by the CCJE at its 4th meeting (26-28 November 2003).

4.         As announced during the above mentioned meeting, the questionnaires is are preceded by a preliminary note by the Chair of the CCJE, , in conjunction with the Chair of the CCJE-GT, having the wider goal to introduce the questionnaires as well as the CCJE's activities for 2004 in general.


I.         INTRODUCTION

1.                   At its meeting of 2628 November 2003, the CCJE asked the Working Party Chair to draft a questionnaire on the topics for consideration in 2004:

(i)      case management (see Part II e of the framework global action plan for judges in Europe);

(ii)     judges' role in trials (see Part III C a of the action plan);

(iii)    the use of alternative dispute resolution methods;

1.                   In accordance with the CCJE’s request, the Chair of the CCJEGT, in conjunction with the Chair of the CCJE, has drafted the questionnaire in order to gather the relevant information summarising national positions visàvis the topics concerned.

1.                   This document contains the questionnaire on the topics referred to under A 1 i, ii and iii above as they have been approved by the CCJE at its 4th meeting (2628 November 2003).

1.                   As announced during the above mentioned meeting, the questionnaire is preceded by a preliminary note by the Chair of the CCJE, in conjunction with the Chair of the CCJEGT, having the wider goal to introduce the questionnaire as well as the CCJE's activities for 2004 in general.

BII.   NOTE PRELIMINAIREOBSERVATIONS PRELIMINAIRY REMARKS ON THRELATIVES AU  CONTENTU OF THDE OPL’AVINION ON A FAIS SUR HLEARING WITHIN A PROCEASON EQUITABLE TIMEDANS UN DELAI RAISONNABLE ET L AND THE ROLE OFDES JUDGES IDANS LE PROCEEDINGS

1.                   For somDe yearpuis pastquelques années, mlana gemenst iofn des proceeédingures by thepar les courttsribunaux has been eévolving towaue verds fullne meilleur e prise en consideération of thdes inteéresêts of pdersons amenable to justiciables.

1.                   L’attention des pPractitcioeners’ attention in fact focuses on ways of se porte en effet sur les moyens de meetingrépondre aux atten thetes du  public’s, expectations by asenssuriang that all who avail themselves oft à chaque usager des services de la justice services not on seuly have readierement un meilleur accesès to theà  l‘ institution b, mais aut alsosi une benefit from enhanced effeicacitivé renforcée deess of thes proceédures applied and from more reliablemises en oeuvre et des garanties plus  sérieuses guarantees that rulings delivered will bed’exé execution des décisions rendues.Practitioners have directed attention to ways of meeting the public’s expectations that all who seek justice should not only have readier access to the courts but also benefit from enhanced effectiveness of the procedures applied and more reliable guarantees that rulings delivered will be enforced.

1.                   TheL’instrument essentiael instrument of this de cette évolution ies the la Convention eEuropéean Convention on Humane des Dro Rights de l’Homme,, thave c la jurise-law of theprudence de la Court being consulted in prise pourder to l’interpreétation andet l’applyication itde ses disprovsistions.

1.                   Grâce notamment à l’articleArticle 6 of thede la Convention especially has generated the accumulation now noted of a, on assiste actuellement à l’apparition d’un fonds procédural fund of procedural law commoun to theaux  diffeérents Etats européean states and brought into being et à l’émergence de principes geéneéral principles which, above and beyond the wux dealsth ainés, au delà de la diversity of thé et de la richesse des systèmes nationaul systemsx, areà  intended to secure the garantir le droight of d’accesès à un to a courtibunal, thle droight tod ’obtaien air une deécision at the end ofà l a fair and equitable’issue d’une proceédure l, and the right to obtainoyale et équitable ainsi que celui de parvenir à l’ exeécutionenforcement of of anythedu judgement deliverendu.

1.                   ThLe  droight to a fair trialà un procès équitable t is tending to become a true substantive right for theà devenir pour les citizoyens of de l’Europe, oun véritable whose enfodrcemenoit is ensubrstantied by thel, dont la Cour eEuropéean Court of Human Rightse and esubsequently the droi domestic courtsts de l’homme et, à sa suite, les juridictions nationales assurent la mise en oeuvre.


1.                   IBl n’efore st pas inutile, avant d’examining in more r detail themanière plus précise la question of thde mlana gemensti of cn des afsfaires by the courpar les tsribunaux, it would not be amiss toe recalppeler thles enseignements  principal ux tenets derived from thés de clas jue-law of therisprudence de la Court in where en matière de proceédure is concerned ( en leavissang asit de the côté les questions ofd’ indeépendeance anet d ’impartialityé ofdes judges already considered by théjà examinées par le C.C.J.E.CCJE in itlors dearli ses trworkavaux antérieurs ).

a) concerning the              – Ssur le d roight of d’accesès to a coà urn tribunal :

1.                   Any person wishing to bring legalproceedingsToute personne souhaitant introduire une action en  mjust hice doit aveoir accesès to a court, à un tand no ribunal et les EStateinterferences ne peuven with this, en droit ou en fait, porter atteinte à cette preérogative, whether in fact or in law, is permissible (JudgmentsArr êtsGolder,    21/02/1975, ; Deweer  27/02/1980, ; Bellet 04/12/1995, ; Brumarescu,  28/10/1999).

1.                   EFurthermn outre, la procédure judicial procedure is of re noe présente d’ use tilité qunle ss thi les deécisions are delivsonte rendd by thues par les courtribunaux dans withiun adélai reaisonnable time, l’athis time beippréciationg assessed according to ae ce délai étant fonction de la combinatison ofde plusieveurals criteèriaes includiangt nothamment la complexity of thé de cl’asffaire and, thle comportemenduct of thedu applicarequérant and of thet celui des autorités compeétent authorities (Judgments Arrêts Konig, 28/06/1978, ; Gozalvo, 09/11/1999 ).

                –      b) concerning the fairness Sur land loyauté et l’équity of thé de la proceeédingsure :

1.                   TheLa Court superveislles the various au respect par les différenSts Etates’ compliance with thdeu principle of dequ l’égality ofé des armes, which carriesqui implithque obligation tl’o affordb eligation d’offrir à chaque party aie une possibilité reaisonnable opportunity to presentde p hisrésenter sa or her cause, including his or her evidencey compris ses preuves,, undeanrs des conditions that do not place hquim or her at a substantiae l disadvantage  p vis-à-vislacent pas dans une s his or her opponentituation de net désavantage par rapport à son adversaire (Judgmen Arrêt Domnbo Beheer , 27/10/1993 ).

 

1.                   ThLe samêmee principle of dequ l’égality ofé des armes also presuppose austhat the rights of thi que les droits de la deéfencse arsoient securedrespectés.

1.                   As theComme l’a énoncé la Court has held (Judgment Arrêt McMichael , 24/02/1995 ), “as a matter of general principle thle droight to a fair –adversarial - tà un riaprocès équitabl means the  copportunity to have knowledge of anrad icomment onire implique par principe, pour une the observations filed or evidence adduced by the other partypartie, la faculté de prendre connaissance des observations ou des pièces produites par l’autre, ainsi que d’en discuter ”.

1.                   FLairness of proceedings also pyauté de la procédurompts the conduit également à la neécessairy statement of grmoutivation des for judgements, if onlye seraito show that th-ce que pour montrer que les judges have takeon into pris en  consideération thle s moyens et pièces essentiael submissions and documentary evidence relied on and adduced by thes invoqués et fournies par les parties (Judgmen Arrêts Fouquet, 31/01/1996, ; Higgins, 19/02/1998 ).

          –

          c) concesSurning les guaranteies of ed’exeécution of judies dcial rulingsécisions judiciaires :

1.                   The Le droight to haveà l’exécution des judgements executed is the final st la dernière guaranteie of a fair trialdu procès équitable  : th:

1.                   “ Lle droight of d’accesès to a court would beà un tribunal serait illusoryillusoire if si l’ordre a juridique interne d’un Etat cContractiang State’s domestic legal system allowedt permettait a final, binding qu’une décision judicial decision toire définitive et obligatoire remainste inopeérantive to theau deétriment of one d’une partyie ” (Judgmen Arrêt Hornsby, 19/03/1997 ).

1.                   ThLe droight to a fair trialà un procès équitable, construed in the light of the foregoinge aspectsntendu sous ces différents aspects, must doit guider la reéflectxion onsur les questions relatiouchang to the manaà la gemenst iofn court casedes affaires judiciaires, it being pointéed out thant thobservé que le Councseil ofde l’Europe has already devoted substantial work to thiséjà consacré d’importants travaux à ce topicdomaine (see  voir n paroticularmment “The rule of l L’Etaw ant d e droit et la justice ”, DIR/DOC (97)8 ; 23rd ème cConfeérence ofdes ministres Ministres eEuropéean Ministers of s de la Jjustice;, report on member states’ measures for achieving a satisfactory “mesures d’un bon rapport cosût- effeictaciveness ratioé whichprises par les Etats membres make for improvement in the effectiveness of permettant d’améliorer l’efficacité de la justice”, Londornes 8-9 Jjuine 2000, MJU-23 (2000)2 ).

1.                   ThisCette memorandumote is intended to review a pour objet d’examiner certains featuresaspects of thedu  subject proposé edn 2004 au to the C.C.J.E.CCJE in 2004, with a list of avec une première liste possible de questions toà put to ouser à nos colleaègues .

 

          1§   A.   LA GESTION ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT OF COURT CASDES AFFAIRES JUDICIAIRES

1.                   For ovDepuirs plus de 20 yearns, thele Councseil ofde l’Europe has shown manifesté un souci constant concern for id’amélpriovingrer l’ accès du the public’s access to à la  justice, afin order to en’assure ther une application effective application of de l’articleArticle 6 de la C.EC.D.HR. :

      –  Reésolution (76) 5 onsur leg’al assid istance judiciaire en matière civil, e et commercial and administrative matters ;

      –  Reésolution (78)8 on legal aid andsur l’ advssistance judiciaire et la consultation juridique ;

       –  Recommeandation R (81)7 on measur les moyens de  facilitatinger l’ accesès toà la justice. This

Ce dernier texte invites Snotamment les Etates to take suitable measures toà prendre des mesures appropriées pour informthe r le public abosutr thle fuonctioning of thement des systèmes judicial systirems, in pourder to simplify,ier  with a view to reducing the cost, les proceédures andet la  preésentation ofdes doacumentes, pour en réduire le co ût. ;

      –  Recommeandation R (93)1 onsur l’accès effective access to the lf aw anu d jroit et à la justice for thde vs pery psoornnes en situation de grande pauvreté.

1.                   It would bse woraithwh ile nto queséressant d’ion therroger les memberes of thedu C.C.J.E.CCJE concerning thesur les initiatives taken in these apreais by Ses à ces sujets par les Etate authorities or cou les rts thribunaux eux-msêmelves, anet d to investigate the recherimpact of sucher l’incidence de telles initiatives on thsur le nuomber of ref derrals to courtsaisines des juridictions.

1.                   TheLa  ovesurlochadinrg of the courtdes tribunaux,, softuvent deénoncriéeda subject of frequent complaint, fais t alusso a matter of concern for thei l’objet des préoccupations du Councseil ofde l’Europe, as witnessescomme en atteste la Recommeandation R (86)12 concernelatingve à certaines measures tovisant à  preévent andi r et réducire the excessive workload in the cosurcharge de travail des tribunaux.

1.                   Among the lines of enquiry Parmi les pistes de réflexion que l’on pthat ceould be put soumetto thre à la discussion du C.C.J.E.CCJE for discussion,, the following peuvent notamay bme menti être évoned in particularqués :

              – (i)    Re-Le recentrinagfocussing e du travail du judges work on thesur ses missions essentiael functions of their office, viz.that is les d’applyicationg thde law  loin the aux llitigation brought before thems qui lui sont soumis (in this r voir, à cet égard, see l’appendinex toe à la Recommeandation R (86)12, givingdonnant des exaemples ofde taskâches dof whichnt les judges cpould brraient êt reli déchargevedés ).

               –(ii)   TheLa question, already consideredéjà examinée lors de during earlier work of theravaux antérieurs du C.C.J.E.CCJE, of thde res mourcyens made avails à lable t disposition des judges, partivecul notarly in connmmection with the l’idéea of forming tdeams of la création d’équipes d’ assistants to helpprocurant au judges reach theirune aide à la deécisions, and et le renhanforciemeng th deir son computer andéquipement informatique et documentairy facilities ( von that scoir sur ce, see point particulaier la Recommeandation R (95)11 andet ses appendicnexes ).

                –(iii)            Thought shouIld faut égalso be givmen to the distributiont réfléchir à la répartition  of des roôles bentweren judges andet personnels administrative fstaff i danthe ms lana gemensti of cn des afsfaires by thpar lecourts tribunaux, havieng rtegnard especially nt co mpthe notamment des  reésultats of thde la réunion multilateéral meeting on sur l’administration ofde la justice and manet la gemenst of the ciourts held at the French Nn des tribunaux tenue à l’Ecole national School for the JudiciaryJudicial Service Code llegea magistrature française from  les 28 to -30 Jjuine 1995 stressing theoulignant  l’importance of training in thed’une formation aux  techniques de gestion, svarious realmsses différents aspects of management technique ( budget andet gestion financialè managrement;, ressources humain resourceses ).

      –(iv) The La question ofdes contracts setting outd’ objectivesfs for courts anet d providing for theire l’évaluation des “ performance evaluations aldeso seemsjuridictions paraît aussi importante, amême s’ilthough thne faut pas méconnaître la préoccupation essentiael conclern, necessarquily the doit être celle de la quality of thée du service de livered bya justice, is not to be discounted.


          This Cette question is famong thoseit partie de  dcealt with at thles traitées lors de la 23ème 23rd e Cconfeérence ofdes ministres Ministres eEuropéean Ministers ofs de la Jjustice hteld inue à  London fromes les 28to -30 Jjuine 2000, which specifically qui a preécommendisé edn particulier :

-Lla defiéterminiation by thepar l’administration judiciaire central justice department e, ien consulcertation withavec les law officersmagistrats, of guiding stae ndaordsme for the handls ing of filesdicatives de traitement des dossiers ;

-Lla production by the coupar les ts of ribunaux de statistics for assques pessirmettang thei d’évaluer leur effeictiveness and theiracité et leurs difficultieés ;

       Ll’adoption by the central justice department , par l’administration judiciaire centrale, deof standing ormesures permanentes ou t short-term measures designed toporaires destinées à ré make up the considesorable der layes retards importants conosteatés d ians certaincourtes juridictions.

     –(v)   A Les mesures alternative disput de setrègtlement measures also des litiges contributes to the également à la résolution effeictive resolution oface des litigationes, even though they are même si elles ne doivent to be perpas être ceivonçued as an ideal comme un means of “decongestingode privilégié de “ désengorgement thde courts tribunaux.

          ThLe Councseil ofde l’ Europe hy aas produced consacré plusieveurals Recommeandations in this regard :

          R (98)1,  onsur la médiation family mediation iale ;

          R (99)19,  onsur la meédiation ien matière peénal matterse ;

          R (2001)9,  onsur les mesures alternatives tode règlement des litigation betws een tre les autorités administrative authorities and s et les personnes pprivatée parties ;

          R (2002)10,  onsur la meédiation ien matière civil matterse.

          AParmong the relevant i les questions that might besusceptibles d’être discussedtées sur ce point, let us mentionon peut évoquer celle de la  the place of thedu judge ind thans le processus de la meédiation process (time-barring prescription, supervisioncontrôle, solution ofrèglement des difficulties, etc.és...), the legal standing ofcelles de la personnalité des meédiatoeurs oru conciliatoeurs and theit de leur tformationing, thcelle de la confidentiality ofé des opérations de meédiation oru conciliation transactions, thce outcomlle of thde l’issue de la measure and thet de l’homologation judicial certification, if applicablre, of aéventuelle d’un agccoreementd, thce lle de l’effeicacitivé eness ant du délai  timde-span of the la procédure de meédiation oru conciliation procedure, thce balancle bdetween the l’équilibre des  parties anet du observance of thespect du  principle of edqu’égaalityé, with the proviso thatla  meédiation oru la conciliation ought not to become a devant pas devenir un  moyeans of subjugating thede domination sur les parties deemed to beréputées les plus wefakiblest.directions to parties to seek mediation, supervision of mediation, assisting resolve difficulties, etc.), the legal standing of mediators of conciliators and their training, the confidentiality of mediation or conciliation procedures, the effect of a successful mediation or conciliation, and the possibility of its judicial endorsement, the effectiveness and time-span of mediation or conciliation procedures, the balance between the parties and the application of the principle of equality, in such a way that mediation or conciliation cannot become the means by which one party can obtain an unfair advantage over another.

 

1.                   One cpould also examinerra aussi se pencher sur les out-of-court mesures de conciliation oru de meédiation measures,extérieures au procès, partficuln notarly mmento discoverd whethe rechercher si, besiau des thlà de l’obvjectious aim of évident d’é averitinger les délais de la proceédural delayse judiciaire, they affolles procurent d adequates guaranteies of fair,suffisantes de traitement impartial handling ofet équitable diesput différends.

Le questionnaire relatif à la gestion administrative des affaires pourrait ainsi prendre en considération les problèmes suivants :

Mesures prises pour développer l’assistance judiciaire et l’information du public sur les procédure judiciaires;

Incidences de ces mesures sur la saisine des tribunaux;

Rôles respectifs des juges et des personnels administratifs des tribunaux dans la gestion des dossiers;

Moyens humains et technologiques mis à la disposition des juges pour le traitement des dossiers;

Les normes de traitement des affaires;

Les contrats d’objectifs et l’évaluation des résultats;

La place et le fonctionnement des modes alternatifs de règlement des litiges .

                    2§         B.          LMANA GEMENSTI OFN DES PROCEEDINGURES

1.                   TIl s’agit d’examiner hela question of management of casdes is to be considered, la gestion des affaires, in this ionstance not from the plus so strictly us son aspect purement administrativf de angle of managing throughput”stion des “ flux anet des “pending ca setocks”, bmais sout from thes l’angle proceédural angle in, pour déter to identify the right miner  les measures topropres à assurensureer l’ effeicacitivé deness of l’intervention judicial actionre.

          a) mlana gemenst iofn des affaires de nature civil litigatione

1.                   Seeking toDestinée à  iampréliovre thr le fuonctioninemeng oft de la justice”, la Recommeandation R (84)5 sets formut ale un certainu nombere ofde proposalitions on which thsur les quelles le CCJE mpourraight utilsefully givme ant d opinioner un avis. ThisIl faut ajouter à ce text should be tlak en in conjunction with Recommeandation R (95)5 concerning the introduction and improvement of the functioning of appeal systems and procedures in civil and commercial casessur l’amélioration du fonctionnement des recours en matière civile et commerciale and thet les proposals itiof thns de la 23rd e Confeérence ofdes Ministres eEuropéean Ministers ofs de la  Justice.

1.                   SomQue linques of pistenquirys de réflexion  (not n exhaustives) concesurning the m lana gemensti of civil cn dases affaires de nature civile:

1.                  

  A — La gestion des affaires de nature civile

Destinée à “améliorer le fonctionnement de la justice”, la Recommandation R (84)5 formule un certain nombre de propositions sur les quelles le C.C.J.E. pourrait utilement donner un avis.

Il faut ajouter à ce texte la Recommandation R (95)5 sur l’amélioration du fonctionnement des recours en matière civile et commerciale et les propositions de la 23ème Conférence des Ministres européens de la Justice.

Quelques pistes de réflexion ( non exhaustives ) sur la gestion des affaires de nature civile :

               –(i)    Th Sur le rôle du judge’s role in dans la preépariationg oru l’investigating the caseruction du  procès before the court :

UDands uner a procédure modernprocedure geared to urnée vers l’effeicacitivé, leness, the caseproc èsshould not be ne doit pas être left for abandonné au bon vouloir dthes parties to influence as they will. Th

Le judge requires thedoit disposer des proper poweuvoirs tonécessaires pour control thôler les parties, to set thfixe timr let cable for thendri er de xcl’échange and for thet de la submission of applicationsprésentation des demandes,, pleasrguments andet preuvidences, to fix the déterminer la date of thde hearing oru hearingdes audiences, to direct andmaîtriser et controôl the r lexaminations of wiauditioness des and investigatémoivns e t les measures d’instruction, to pensalise thenctionner l’inertie des parties’ inaction  oru le non-complianc reswith the court’spect de ses injuonctions, togdether with même que les  abus de of the proceédure or the malpractice ofu les  certain litigantscomportements déloyaux de certains justiciables.

                –(ii)             DSur la diversification of file processding es methodes de traitement des dossiers :

Use ofIl faut encourager l’utilisation de  procédures simplifiéed procedures and s et des procédures acceéleératéed procedures is to be encouraged f, pour dispostraing ofter les litigation that ostensibly does not raise paraissant pas soulever des questions complex issues, or foru pour  arriving atobtenir  des mesures imposées par l’urgentlcy required measures e.

 

In thiOn se respectéférera, reference can bve made with advantage to thec profit à cet égard aux di vaeriouses contributions preésentéeds at Elors de la conférence européean Conference of Jne des judges in Ndu mois de novembere 2003 on earsur ly se rèttglement of disputprécoce des litiges. Let us mention, for

Citonst pancr e,xemple  les proceédures ford’injon issuing ction de payment r oru pde fairformance ordetrs and otherutres judgements without a court hearingsans procès, le jugement oral judgment, les jugements interlocutoiryes oru preéparatoiry judgments whereby the facts of a case can be apprehended, promptly disposing ofpermettant de cerner les données d’un litige theen éliminant de manière précoce les questions secondairy issues, and summaryles proceédures which ought not to bde coréféré qui nfine d toivent pas être the applicamition ofées à la prise de mesures provisoional measures fpour the la duration of a casée beid’ung tried instance en cours.

                   –(iii)         Sur l’exécution pProvisional executionenforcement ofire des judgements :

L’exécution iImmeédiate execution of lower court des deécisions de première inst ance est une guaranteie of thde l’effeicacitivé deness of procédures judiciail procedures and a safeguard forres et une protection des  sincere plaitigants againstdeurs de bonne foi contre les manœuvres dilatoiry tacticses..

It would be adviserait souhaitable for thque le C.C.J.E.CCJE to issue éamette unn opavinion on thiss sur cette question, aind on thsi que sur les guaranteies that may be made avasusceptilable for thes d’être ouvertes au  benefit of theprofit de la partyie corndamnéered to comply with theà exécuter le judgement even before anavant même l’examen de son  appeal against it is entertained. CCJE should also consider that immediate enforcement is a natural characteristic of court decisions in common law countries, and that the permission of either the lower court or the court of appeal is needed to pursue an appeal.

La Recommeandation R (95)5 ies vet pary ticaulièrementio prusdente puin merely stating thatsqu’elle indique seulement que “the first court should be able, in appropriate cases, to allow provisional enforcement unless this will cause the losing party irreparable or serious harm or would make it impossible for justice to be done at a later stage le premier tribunal devrait être habilité, dans les cas appropriés, à permettre l’exécution provisoire, à moins que celle-ci ne cause à l’auteur du recours un préjudice grave ou irréparable ou ne fasse obstacle à ce que justice soit ultérieurement rendue ”. While

Tout en acceptidhérang th à cese reéservationes, thje serais à titre personnel favorable lle CCJE cpouldrrait ustilefullyment give an opinion donner un avis en supportingfaveur  a more d'à une formulation plus directly formulate d ’un principle ofd’exécution provisional execution forire pour les jugements de fiprst-emière instance judgments.

                   –(iv)         RSur les voiemes die recours :

RLemedies agavoinest lowde r eccourts contre les judgements des tribunaux de première instance should plarainly be allowed issent devoir en principle être admises (with some sauf exceptions, linkted in parnanticul notar to themment à la chnaracteure ofde minorpetits litigationes mettant ienvolving cause des intérêts financiers limited financial interestsés), but they muaist be supllervise doivent être contrôlées, tpo aur évoidter de donner  making à la procédure judicial procedure unireason uably protractedne durée déraisonnable,, which is incompatible with avec l’articleArticle 6 de la C.EC.D.HR.


AccordinglyDans cette perspective, CCJE could discuss the desirability of restricting appeals by introducing a requirement of court permission, an approach which is found to a greater or lesser extent in common law systems. In any case, the following measures could be contemplated:the on pourrait envisager followinges measures could be contemplatedsuivantes :

Ø     A    .  Un appeal allowing retrial of thepermettant un nouveau jugement de l’a cffasire ien facit ande it en lawdroit, carrying thevec les  obligations oru restrictions spreécifoniséed ins par les Recommeandations R (84)5 andet R (95)5 :

        the appellant should

Oobe compelled to make a ligation pour l’auteur du recours d’exposer sufficisammently early and fulltôt,  statement of thde façon circonstanciée grounds for the

, les motifs de son appeal and the  reqcouerst ed at lterations tmo dificathe ionitials de la première deécision demandées ;

        Llimitation of thedu nuomber of written de submissionsconclusions whichécrite thes que les parties are allowed to peuvexnt échangeatr en appeal, considering that thempte tenu du fait que l’ casffaire has already received a éjà fairst hl’objet d’aun priemier exameng;

       Iimpossibilityé, saunlessf circonstances exceptionanel circumstances applyes, ofde presenting thesoumettre  aux judges at d’appeal withdes facits not relied on ati firstnvoqués en première instance ;

       restricting theLlimiter les grounds forcauses de s urstaying thes à l’ exeécution of thedu lower court judgement de première instance ;

       puniSshing wrongful anctuse of remediesionner les recours abusifs.

Ø     A setting-aside confined to          . Une cassation limitée aux questions of law whichde droit, sans faire obstacle e in principle does not obstruct the à l’exeécution of thde impugned la deécision andcontestée et en  empowers thedonnant à la Supreme Court suprême le pouvoir to determine whether the disputed ’apprécier si le point of law merits de doit litigieux itsmérite son intervention.

Ø     remedy (normally before a Supreme Court, which should have the power to determine whether the disputed point deserves its intervention) allowing review only of questions of law, with no obstacle in principle for the enforcement of the contested decision.

            –(v)       ESur l’exeécution and precautiona les mesuryprotective meas consuervatoires :

EIl convient de ffective, straightforwardmettre en place des procédures d’exeécution procedures and efficiacens et protectivesimples ainsi que des systèprmecautionarys de measures should be introduced so that the conservatoires performants,  pour protéger utilement les inteéresêts of thdes parties can be safeguarded advisedly during the proceedingdant l’instance.

 

In this rA cespect égard, thela 23rd e Confeérence ofdes Ministres eEuropéean Ministers ofs de la Justice m23ème conférence des ministres européens de la justice ade formulé des valuable suggestions importan thees sur l’ effeicacitivené dess of procédures et des personnels en charge de l’exeécution procedures and of the staff responsible, unsur lestrict libred accesès toaux  informations concernant les biens et avoirs des débitoeurs’ property and assets, and fuller sur une meilleure recognnaitiossan byce dans les pays requeiste d countries of the deécisions deliverend byues par les cojuridictions établies dan anos un auther e Etat membre du Councseil of de l’Europe member state.

It would appear necessary to obtain the opinion of theL’avis des membres du C.C.J.E.CCJE members on thsur cese questions paraît devoir être recueilli.

Le questionnaire sur la gestion des procédures civiles pourrait ainsi porter sur :

         Le délai moyen de traitement des affaires ( en distinguant la première instance et les voies de recours),

         Le rôle du juge dans l’instruction des affaires civiles,

         L’utilisation de procédures simplifiées et/ou accélérées,

         L’exécution immédiate des jugements de première instance,

         Les voies de recours et les conditions de leur mise en oeuvre,

         Les procédures d’exécution des jugements et de reconnaissance des jugements étrangers,

         Les mesures conservatoires prises pour la durée des instances.

         L’utilisation de la médiation en matière civile.

          B —b)   mlLana gemenst iof criminal casdes affaires pénales

1.                   CriminLal proceédure has to fulfil a twofold aimpénale doit répondre à un double objectif :

en          Aassuringer une répression effeictivace suppression of lawbreakingdes comportements délictueux ;

p          Présafeguarding thver les droights of thdes parties ( victime andet accprévenused ).

1.                   Its striking feature is that itSa particularité est, non seulement bringsde mettre en présence des parties “ privatées parties face to face and moreover requires the intervention of, mais de faire in tervenir aus si des repreésentantivs des of thel’Autorité public queauthorities, thela police and the prosecutionIts hallmark is that it involves representatives of the public authorities, the police and the prosecution, as well as (in some civil countries) bringing private” parties face to face. le In many Ministère pPublico, celuntri-ci ayant dans de nombreux pays the prosecution has aun separate status from that of distinct de celui des judges. I

1.                   En additionutre, thles inteéresêts at staken jeu impliquent, even mcore pluso than in qu’en matière civil proceedings, demand carde to vensure illether à l’ effeicacitivené dess of the proceédures set in motionmises en oeuvre.

1.                   AParmong thi les nuomebroeusx instruments du Councnseil ofde l’ Europe instruments consacrés à la criminal justice pénale, specific referencel shofaut pld be made us particulièrement citoer :

lLa Recommeandation R(87)18 concerniang the la simplification of criminalde la justice pénale ;

L la Recommeandation R(95)12 on the manasur la gemensti of crimina de la justice pénale;

thLles conclusions of thdes réunions multilateéral meetings organisées d ans part ofle cadre de legal co-opeération juridique  with avec lthes countries ofpays d’Europe c Central and Ee east eorien Europtale ( Strasbourg, 29-31 Mmayi 1996, 3--5 J juilylet 1996 ; Messinae, 5-7 Jjuine 1996 ) whquich formulatent des principles drawing attppelantion to thela place essentiael place le that thque doit conserver le judge must retdain in criminas l e proceedingès pénal.

1.                   Le danger Thedes multiples formes of de traitement simplifieé d handling of criminal litigation making their appearance in many countries u contentieux pénal apparin fact carryaissant dans de nombreux pays est the risken effet de that développer l’action de la police et du the action of the police and the prosecution outstrip that of the Ministère pPublic au détriment de l’intervention  du judge, threatened with,  rcelegation to the roleui-ci risquant d’être réduit au rôle d’organe of an agencyd’en registeriemeng t de décisions taken up the linrises byen amont par des bodies which do not afford the same rganes ne présentant pas les mêmes guaranteies ofd’ indeépendeance anet d ’impartialityé.

1.                   ThLe judge should in all circumstances retainevrait en supervision or toute hypothèse conserver la direction ou le controôl of the de l’investigaruction oru of thede prior il’enquiryête préalable, at least as regardsu moins en c te qui hconcerne les deécisions affectiang the freedom of the la liberté des personnes implises en catused (eg for pre-trial par exemple, pour la  deétention in French criminalprovisoire de la proceédure pénale française).

 

1.                   An opinion should also be issuedIl concnviendrait égalemening t d’émettre un avis sur the l’importance of thde judge’sl’ intervention fordu juge pour les d findings of guilt and determination of penaltieséclarations de culpabilité et la fixation des sanctions. The role of juries should also be discussed.

III.    QUESTIONNAIRE ON CASE MANAGEMENT, JUDGES' ROLE IN TRIALS, AND ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION METHODS

A.      ACCESS TO JUSTICE

1.                   Have measures been taken, by legislatures and/or the court system, in order to inform the public on the functioning of the judicial system? If so, please comment on the impact of such actions on the amount of cases brought before courts.

1.                   Have measures been taken, by legislatures and/or the court system, in order to reduce the costs of bringing actions before the courts (e.g., by simplifying and/or standardizing legal documents to commence or continue litigation; by waiving, at least in some circumstances, the need to employ a lawyer; etc.). If so, please comment on the impact of such actions on the amount of cases brought before courts.

1.                   Have measures been taken to ensure an effective "legal aid" system? If so, please describe the system, with specific reference to:

(a) eligibility requirements;

(b) identification of authorities entitled to grant the aid;

(c) budgetary arrangements.

4.       Have other measures been taken? For example,

          a) conditional fee agreements (“CFAs”), whereby a party does not have to pay his or her lawyers if he or she loses, but his or her lawyers are entitled to charge the losing party up to a multiple of the normal fee if he or she wins;

          b) legal costs insurance for

          - a party’s own legal costs and/or

          - any costs which if he or she loses he or she has to pay to the winning party;

          c) fixed costs, so that the winning party can only recover a limited amount from the losing party, whatever he or she may have chosen to pay to his or her own lawyers.

B.      REDUCTION OF EXCESSIVE WORKLOADS IN THE COURTS

1.                   Have measures been taken to relieve judges from nonjudicial tasks such as those listed, as examples, in the Appendix of Rec. No. R (86) 12 concerning measures to prevent and reduce the excessive workload in the courts? Please give comments as to any other tasks performed by judges that, according to the particular circumstances of the country, could be assigned to other persons or bodies; please identify tasks that could be entrusted to administrative court staff, whose jobs would thus be enriched.

1.                   Are there bodies, outside the judicial system, at the disposal of parties to solve specific "small claims" disputes? If so, please comment on the impact of the availability of such procedures on the amount of cases brought before courts.

1.                   Is there a regular review of court workloads, and are consequent measures (i.e. changes in courts' geographical distributions; variations in the territorial, monetary and subject matter competence of courts; variations in the court personnel) taken to ensure a balanced distribution of the workload? Please identify bodies responsible for such review and for consequent policy choices; please also describe the role of the judiciary in this process.

1.                   What role do judges (especially chief judges) play in the management of judicial infrastructures, human resources, information and technology equipment? Do they receive regular training in management techniques? What role, on the contrary, is played by administrative top officials?

C.       QUALITY OF JUSTICE AND ITS ASSESSMENT; QUANTITATIVE STATISTICAL DATA; MONITORING PROCEDURES

1.                   Is there any system in operation in your country having the aim of assessing quality of judicial activity? Please comment on indicators chosen for such assessments, as well as on results obtained.

1.                   Please describe the operation of quantitative statistical data collection concerning judicial activity. Please identify, in particular:

(i)      institutional subjects (centralised and/or decentralised) in charge of data collection, data analysis, as well as receiving followup;

(ii)     judicial activities that form the object of data collection and analysis;

(iii)    relevance of statistical data in professional evaluation of individual judges;

(iv)    relevance of statistical data in evaluation of performance of judicial offices and/or chief judges.

1.                   Please describe monitoring procedures in operation in your country that, employing assessment data as above, may result into actions aimed at a better control of reasonable duration of proceedings or better allocation of resources (such as variations of judicial and/or administrative staff, revision of territorial or subject matter distribution of cases, "performance contracts" and the like);

1.                   In case that some or all of the above actions are the task of agencies other than the judiciary, what is the role played by the judiciary in the same actions?

D.      ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

          a) in general

1.                   Please produce a list of ADR schemes in operation in your country, identifying private and public schemes, generalist and specialised schemes (both according to qualities of litigants and subject matter, with especial reference to family mediation, criminal mediation, administrative and civil mediation), voluntary and mandatory schemes (please clarify if your system allows that access to court is barren for some disputes, and that litigants should resort to ADR schemes onlywhether your system bars access to a court or allows a judge to stay court proceeding, in respect of some disputes, either in favour of ADR or pending ADR). Please specify if the parties or the State bear the costs of ADR.

1.                   Are there legal provisions ensuring State supervision over ADR agencies, as well as training of mediators?

1.                   Is legal aid applicable to all or some ADR procedures?

1.                   Is confidentiality protected? Is any document of the ADR procedure apt to be produced in court, in case mediation failed?

1.                   May the judge consider refusal to access ADR or to accept an amicable settlement when making orders relating to trial expenses or costs? in order to decide on trial expenses?

          b) incourt ADR

1.                   What is the role of the judge in mediation during a court proceeding? May the judge recommend or order that the parties appear before a mediator, even without their consent? May the judge serve himself or herself as a mediator or a conciliator, or is a conflict of role envisaged? If so, please indicate solutions found. Please give details as to costs of the incourt mediation.

1.                   If the judge is entitled, by law or court practice, to appoint a mediator or a conciliator, what qualifications do these subjects have? What training have they received? What responsibilities do they incur? How is their independence guaranteed? Is equality among the parties guaranteed, so that no unfair agreement is concluded?

1.                   What legal relevance does an incourt conciliation or mediation agreement have (in particular, as to its enforcement)? Are there specific provisions for agreements reached before certain accredited mediators and/or endorsed by a judicial homologation?

          c) outofcourt ADR

1.                   What kind of judicial control is possible on outofcourt ADR agreements?

         d) ADR in administrative law disputes

1.                   Is it possible under your system that a public entity participates in an ADR procedure? Does the person representing the entity have the power to settle the dispute, or is an administrative proceeding needed to conclude the amicable settlement?

e) criminal law and ADR

1.                   Please describe the role and extent of ADR proceedings visàvis criminal investigations and/or criminal proceedings in your country. What are the respective roles of police, public prosecution and the judge?

E.      CASE MANAGEMENT

          a) in general

1.                   Please give details as to the average duration of a civil and a criminal proceeding (where charges are brought against an identified individual) in your country, with separate figures as to first degree and appellate proceedings, as well as Supreme Court proceedings. Please provide relevant information as to data used to calculate the average. Please also give details as to duration of simplified and accelerated procedures. Please state the source of data.

1.                   Does in general the judge have sufficient powers to control the parties' activities, to choose between written or oral procedures, to resort to a summary judgement, to determine the calendar and the timelimits for presentation of arguments and evidence, to sanction delaying tactics and/or abusive behaviours?

1.                   Have measures been taken to assure that most cases are adjudicated by a single judge, rather than by a panel?

          b) in civil disputes

1.                   Please describe, in general, implementation in your country of Recommendation No. R (84) 5 concerning principles of civil procedure designed to improve the functioning of justice. Some specific aspects will be dealt with by following questions.

Please specify characteristics of procedures existing in your country that may qualified as accelerated, simplified, and/or summary. Please refer to materials (available on the Council of Europe's website) presented during the European Conference of Judges on the theme "Early settlement of disputes and the role of judges" held in Strasbourg, 2425 November 2003. INTRODUCTION

1.         In 2005 the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) has the task[1] of adopting an opinion on "justice and society" for the attention of the Committee of Ministers.

2.         In this regard, the CCJE proposed that the following points which appear in the Framework Global Action Plan for Judges in Europe be considered:

-                     the educational role of the courts in a democracy, relations with the public (see Part V b of the Action Plan);

-                     relations with all those involved in court proceedings (see Part V c of the Action Plan);

-                     accessibility, simplification and clarity of the language used by the courts in proceedings and decisions (see Part V d of the Action Plan);

3.         This work will be carried out on the basis of:

- replies by delegations to a questionnaire;

- a report prepared by a specialist;

- the contributions of participants in the 2nd European Conference of Judges on the theme of "Justice and the Media", organised by the Council of Europe on the initiative of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) in co-operation with the Polish National Judicial Council and with the support of the Polish Ministry of Justice, taking place in Cracow (Poland) on 25 and 26 April 2005;

- a draft opinion to be prepared by the Secretariat and the Working Party of the CCJE in 2005.

4.                 The present text contains the questionnaire mentioned above.

5.                 In 2004, on the initiative of the Chair of the CCJE, the questionnaire, prepared by the Vice-Chair of the CCJE, was accompanied by an explanatory note to be used as a basis for discussion.

6.                 In view of the need for both the questionnaire and the explanatory note to be circulated well before the deadline for completion and thus better respond to the needs of the delegations of the CCJE, the present text referring to the 2005 activities will be submitted directly to the CCJE plenary meeting taking place in Strasbourg on 22-24 November 2004.

7.                 The explanatory note is worded to provide a separate introduction to each of the sections into which the questionnaire has been subdivided. This will help respondents deal in detail with all the implications of the questions asked (in italics) as they appear in the explanatory note.

8.                 Answers to the questionnaire should be accompanied by relevant documentation. Some specific items of documentation that may be useful are mentioned in paragraph 35 below.

A. THE EDUCATIONAL ROLE OF THE COURTS IN A DEMOCRACY.

9.                 Judicial decisions play a relevant role in democratic societies. Judicial decisions have an added value: if, on one hand, they settle disputes concerning individuals, on the other hand they play an "educational role" as they provide citizens with relevant information as to the application of the law in practice.

10.               Courts are, and are accepted by the public at large as being, the proper forum for the ascertainment of legal rights and obligations and the settlement of disputes relative thereto; the public at large have respect for and confidence in the courts' capacity to fulfil that function.[2]

11.               More and more, however, countries have to face social attitudes, reflecting general tensions in modern democracies, expressing distrust in the courts, as well as the view that judges do not always reflect the will of the people.

12.               In general, it is argued that although the courts exist to serve the people, the judge's duty is to apply the law in a fair and even-handed manner is little known. Adequate information about the functions of the judiciary and their mission, even when other state powers are involved, can effectively contribute toward an increased understanding of the courts as the cornerstone of democratic constitutional systems, as well as of the limits of their activities.

13.               Furthermore, most citizens' knowledge of their court system is limited to their experiences as litigants, witnesses, or jurors. This implies, on one hand, that the role of the media is essential in broadcasting information to the public on the role and the activities of the courts (see section C.2 below); on the other hand, it is also crucial that the judiciary itself, by in some way widening and improving the scope of its "educational role" as described above, which is no longer limited to delivering decisions, fills the function of communicator and facilitator, bridging the gap between citizens' expectations and the courts' mission.

14.               If courts so far have accepted to participate in educational programmes to which they might have been invited, it is perhaps high time to abandon such an old approach ("If we're asked we'll go, but we're not often asked") and to view courts as the principal promoters of "court literacy" for the general public.

15.               For example, courts have been known to organise, often with the support of other social actors, educational initiatives that bring teachers, students, parents, lawyers, community leaders and the media into the courts to interact with judges and the justice system ("outreach programmes"). Such programmes usually incorporate the use of professionals with prepared resources and provide a network for teachers’ professional development.

16.               The CCJE might be interested in learning about such experiences and may recommend the general support of the European judiciaries and the Council of Europe for some similar initiatives.

                    Questions

A.1.              Please describe arrangements existing in your country aiming at informing justice users and/or the general public about the functioning of the judicial system. Please describe the specific information provided (nature of proceedings available; average length of proceedings in the various courts; costs and risks involved in case of wrongful use of legal channels; alternative means of settling disputes offered to parties; landmark decisions delivered by the courts) as well as the press resources used (printed citizen's guides, Internet facilities, information offices, etc.). Please also state which authorities provide such services, underlining the role of the courts themselves and/or of lawyers' associations (see paragraphs 12-15 of the CCJE's Opinion No. 6 (2004) on Fair Trial within a Reasonable Time and Judge’s Role in Trials taking into Account Alternative Means of Dispute Settlement). Please say whether a role is played by judges' professional associations and/or by the Judicial Service Commission/High Council for the Judiciary. Please say whether public interest organisations and universities have a role in the above.

A.2.              Please describe the systems envisaged to satisfy the information needs of policy makers, academics, public interest groups and private citizens.

A.3.              Please describe specifically the educational role of judicial decisions in your country. Please describe how judicial decisions are made known to the general public and how accurate such information is. Please consider that what is relevant is information provided to the public and not to legal professionals. Please also consider that the role of the press will be dealt with in a subsequent section (C.2) of this questionnaire.

A.4.              Please say whether school and university education programmes in your country (even outside  law faculties) include a description of the judicial system and visits to courts. Please specify outside actors that are employed by educational institutions (e.g. in classroom appearances) to provide programmes (judges, court staff, academics, lawyers, non-governmental organisations). Please say whether courts have staff specifically in charge of liaising with educational agencies (P.R. offices or the like). Please describe educational methods (e.g., role playing, attending hearings, etc.).

A.5.              Please say whether courts in general, or some courts, have "outreach programmes" (see above) or at least regular programmes consisting in conducting surveys, holding focus groups, employing lawyers and academics for public forums, etc.

A.6. Please provide relevant information (e.g. summarising contents) as to theoretical studies existing in your country in the above mentioned field(s).

B. THE RELATIONS OF THE COURTS WITH THOSE INVOLVED IN COURT PROCEEDINGS

17.       Individuals that do not belong to legal professions often come into direct contact with court proceedings when they are litigants, witnesses, experts, jurors, etc. Although the role of the media in shaping the public opinion is most relevant, the impressions of citizens as they participate in proceedings in the above roles is also a key element which establishes the image of justice in society.

18.       If people, and especially litigants, involved in court proceedings feel that judges or court staff show, for example, racial or gender bias and/or that the trial in which they are involved suffers from unjustified delay, the perception of those citizens will easily spread.

19.       It might be argued that there is little room for action by the court system itself in this field: it is the culture of a specific society at a certain historical stage that determines the role of the judiciary; beyond that, it is self-evident, and it is inherent in the concept of litigation, that there always will be dissatisfied litigants, who will view a certain decision (and consequently a certain judge, or a group of judges, or the court system as a whole) as being unfair or even biased.

20.       Such objections may be well-founded; nonetheless the CCJE might consider that, for the sake of contributing to a better understanding of the role of the judiciary, action is necessary to ensure that, in so far as possible, the image of justice perceived by individuals involved in court proceedings is accurate and that it corresponds to the efforts of judges and court staff to win respect for and confidence in the courts' capacity to fulfil their functions.

21.       In order to improve relations with those involved in court proceedings, several court systems or individual courts have developed programmes that have an impact on:

a) Training of judges, lawyers and court staff; training in deontology

There have been programmes aiming to ensure that, in verbal and non-verbal communication, courts appear to treat all litigants equally, impartially, and without regard to race, gender, ethnicity, or socio-economic status. Judges and court personnel are instructed to recognise situations that, even on the level of appearance, might create in an individual a perception of a prejudiced attitude, and are trained to deal with such situations in a way that reinforces confidence and respect for the judge. Lawyers receive specific training in deontology, aimed at ensuring that they do not reinforce, either intentionally or unintentionally, by verbal or non-verbal communication, attitudes of distrust in the court system.

            b) Court infra-structures

Some programmes are aimed at removing causes of distrust in the courts, that may lie in the infra-structural organisation of courts. For example, in some cases, removing the stall for the public prosecutor from the vicinity of the court's bench, and placing it at the same level as the place for the defence lawyer might have reinforced the image of equality of arms; removing references to a specific religious creed from the court scene might have reduced the fear of a religious bias; ordering that the accused person appear free before the judge, even if in detention, and substituting other safety measures for the presence of enclosures in the courtroom, might have reinforced the image of presumption of innocence.

c) Court procedure

           

Some actions are aimed at removing some traditional procedural steps and language that might be wrongly perceived (oaths, ways of addressing people, etc.). Some other actions introduceprocedures providing that, before a court appearance, litigants or witness, are metindividually or in groups, by court officers who offer oral or audio-visual presentations, developed in co-operation with social scientists, on how their court experience is likely to develop; the goal of such presentations is to prevent false perceptions of court life.

d) Access to justice programmes

Some actions are tailored for individuals who, because of their socio-economical and cultural conditions, are not completely aware of their rights and obligations, so that they do not exert their rights or, worse still, find themselves involved in legal proceedings due to not carrying out their obligations. The image of justice in the neediest social groups is therefore dealt with through "access to justice" programmes, that include, but are not limited to, legal aid (public information services, free legal counsel, direct access to the judge for petty claims, etc. - see section A of the CCJE's Opinion No. 6 (2004) on Fair Trial within a Reasonable Time and Judge’s Role in Trials taking into Account Alternative Means of Dispute Settlement)

            Questions

B.1.      Please provide detailed information on programmes with the above mentioned objectives being carried out or planned in your court system.

B.2.      Please describe who takes part in programmes.

B.3.      Please provide relevant information (e.g. summarising contents) as to theoretical studies existing in your country in the above mentioned field(s).

C. THE RELATIONS OF THE COURTS WITH THE PUBLIC

i.          DIRECT RELATIONS OF THE COURTS WITH THE PUBLIC

22.       Whereas relations with individual justice users have traditionally been dealt with by the courts, albeit in an unstructured way, courts have been reluctant to have direct relations with the members of the general public who are not involved in proceedings. Publicity of hearings in the sense enshrined in Art. 6 of the ECHR has been traditionally viewed as the sole contact between courts and the general public.

23.       Such an attitude - which implied a passive role of courts in the public arena, in conformity with a traditional conception of the duties of impartiality and discretion, and made the mass media the sole interlocutors for courts - is rapidly changing (see para. 5 above).

24.       The CCJE should investigate what form of direct contact with the public, i.e. not passing through journalistic mediation, is necessary and/or desirable.

25.       The following examples could be considered:

- creation of P.R. offices in courts;

- distribution of printed materials, opening of Internet sites;

- organisation of a calendar of educational forums and/or regular meetings open to citizens, public interest organisations, policy makers, etc.

            Questions

C.1.     Please provide detailed information on programmes with the above mentioned objectives, being carried out or planned in your court system:

C.2.     Please describe who takes part in such programmes.

C.3.     Please provide relevant information (e.g. summarising contents) as to theoretical studies existing in your country in the above mentioned field(s).

ii.         INDIRECT RELATIONS OF THE COURTS WITH THE PUBLIC - JUSTICE AND THE MEDIA

26.       The 2nd European Conference of Judges to be held in Cracow (Poland) on 25 and 26 April 2005 on the theme of "Justice and the Media" will certainly provide relevant materials to guide the CCJE's preparation of what appears to be the "core" subject of the CCJE's 2005 Opinion, i.e. the indirect relations of the court system with the public, by way of journalistic mediation. Since the conference will be open to media representatives, parliamentarians, representatives of interested international organisations and experts on the questions under discussion, the CCJE will have the possibility to collect various points of view.

27.       The CCJE's future Opinion should try to recommend actions, on the part of the States and specifically of the judiciaries, that would help, on the basis of the principles elaborated by the European Court of Human Rights,[3] reconcile protection of freedom of expression and the right to information, on the one hand, and the right to a fair trial, protection of private life, reputation and human dignity and the presumption of innocence, on the other. Reference must be made mainly to Articles 6, 8 and 10 of the ECHR.

28.       A first section of the "justice and the media" chapter of the future Opinion may consequently deal with the fundamental aspects of relations among the potentially conflicting values protected by the European Convention on Human Rights.

29.       On such an essentially theoretical subject, the specialist's report will be a sufficient basis for the CCJE's work. Thus, it is not necessary to ask the delegations further questions.

30.       A second section of the "justice and the media" chapter of the future Opinion might:

- compare national regulations and practices concerning access by journalists to judicial information and the public presentation of such information;

- describe relationships between judges and journalists in their day-to-day interactions;

- recommend "good practices" (to be implemented by judges and journalists, with possible involvement of professional organisations and/or media regulatory agencies and Judicial Service Commissions) that may strike a balance among conflicting values.

31.       In order to make such work possible, a survey of the experiences of several systems is necessary, in order to pinpoint the relevant differences.

            Questions

C.4.     Please describe existing restrictions to the right to information in the field of judicial (civil, administrative, criminal) activity. Please describe the norms concerning secrecy of judicial investigations and/or other norms preventing dissemination of information on the development of a judicial case (e.g. secrecy of witness depositions, of filing a civil party suit within a criminal case, etc.). Please clarify at what stage in proceedings judicial information may be made public. Please also say if there is law or court practice preventing dissemination of names (or pictures) of persons involved in the case (parties, witnesses, public prosecutor, investigating judge, trial judge, etc.).

C.5.     Please provide any information you deem useful as to theimplementation of:

C.5.1   The Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (ETS No. 108);

C.5.2.  Recommendation Rec(2002)2 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on access to public documents;

C.5.3.  Recommendation Rec(2003)13 on the provision of information through the media in relation to criminal proceedings, and Council of Europe instruments mentioned therein.

C.6.     What are the procedures, if any, that guarantee access to information and access by journalists to court hearings and judicial files? Please make appropriate references to existing regulations on this matter. Do courts have spokespersons? Are they judges? Are judges allowed, by regulations and/or by deontological rules, to make statements to the press? If so, under what circumstances?

 

C.7.     Are television cameras allowed into the courtrooms? If so, what rules should govern the broadcasting of the recorded TV images in order to prevent the risk of manipulation?

32.       Another approach the CCJE should take in preparing the future Opinion should concern the role played by judicial authorities in the supervision of media activities in a State governed by the Rule of Law. In a third section of the "justice and the media" chapter of the Opinion, the CCJE might therefore examine potential judicial procedures enabling judges to supervise the media vis-à-vis case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and national legislation and practices.

33.       Specifically, one should consider the implications of:

- protection of human dignity and freedom of expression;

- protection of fundamental rights of the person, vis-à-vis the journalist's responsibility in cases whereincorrect information is provided;

- the role of protective and compensatory measures in cases involving protection of private life.

34.       Although some of the above topics are theoretical, in order that the specialist's report forms a sufficient basis for the CCJE's work, an overview is needed as preparatory work when dealing with some other aspects of delegations’ experiences.

            Questions

C.8.     In the light of national law and case-law, please describe criminal and civil implications of libel, slander, and/or similar violations of a person's reputation. Please give information about penalties provided for by law or judicial practice, as for criminal law, with special reference to violations committed by journalists. Are there different thresholds for responsibility, e.g. for public figures and for private individuals? If so, is there, however, protection for private life of public figures, and under what circumstances?

C.9.     What degree ofprofessional diligence and integrity is requested from journalists? What criteria govern the distinction between lawful and unlawful acts, if the information provided is false? Are there differences between facts reported as such or the uttering of mere opinions? Is the fact that information comes from a qualified source (e.g. a police officer) an element that permits disclosure in any case or at least exempts the journalist from verification? What precautions are requested in the broadcasting, e.g., news concerning provisional arrest of a citizen on the basis of criminal charges? Do police officers and/or prosecution offices and/or investigating judges hold press conferences? If so,what are the procedures?

C.10.   Please provide information as to the amount of compensation afforded by courts to the victims of the above violations. Are there established criteria? Do such criteria depend on the social status of the person in question?

C.11.   What is the legal regime of rectification of inaccurate information? Is spontaneous rectification such that criminal liability is excluded, or compensation diminished?

C.12.   Please describe protective measures available, respectively within criminal and civil procedures (e.g. seizure of publications, order not to distribute a book, etc.). Are there measures in your system that are or might be considered as a form of preventive censorship? Is there a role for the executive branch in supervising the media?

C.13.   In the event that a judge or a court is attacked by the press for reasons connected with the administration of justice, is there a role for the Judicial Service Commission and/or judicial associations? Is the judge bound by a duty of discretion even if a press campaign has been started attacking him or her?

35.       In order for the 2nd European Conference of Judges taking place in Cracow, Poland, on 25-26 April 2005 on the theme of"Justice and the Media", as well as for the preparation of the CCJE's Opinion, to be prepared in the most accurate way, national delegations are also kindly requested to append to their answers to the questionnaire:

-           national legislation on access to information, journalists' access to court hearings and files, and the statutory foundation of journalists' liability;

-           relevant national case-law on freedom of expression, protection of private life and human dignity;

-           statements of "good practices" implemented at national level with a view to improving relations between justice and the media.

D. ACCESSIBILITY, SIMPLIFICATION AND CLARITY OF THE LANGUAGE USED BY THE COURTS IN PROCEEDINGS AND DECISIONS

36.       The language of court decisions is not only a powerful tool available to the courts to fulfil their educational role (see paragraph 3 above), but it is obviously, and more directly, the "law in practice" for the specific litigants of the case. Accessibility, simplification and clarity of the language of courts is therefore necessary.

37.       Substantial research already exists on the language used in court decisions, on a comparative law basis. However, it is essential that in its 2005 Opinion the CCJE expresses the judges' views on this topic.

38.       The CCJE could, for example:

- recommend that legislation concerning reasoning of judgments provide that some form of reasoning should always exist, and that sufficient discretion is left to the judge in choosing whether to adopt an oral judgement (to be transcribed from a recording only upon request and in case of need) and/or a short written reasoned judgment (e.g. in the shape of the "attendu" style decision adopted in France) or an extensive written reasoned judgment, in all those cases in which reference to established precedents is not possible and/or the factual reasoning so requires;

-recommend that simplified forms of reasoning apply to orders, writs, decrees and other decisions that have a procedural value and do not concern the substantive rights of the parties;

- recommend that all decisions be concise and make use of plain language, avoiding Latin or other wordings that are difficult to understand if not necessary, and that the functions of legal institutes referred to be explained briefly, if necessary.

- recommend that all court decisions be readily accessible through Internet sites, and in print upon reimbursement of the cost of reproduction only.

            Questions

D.1.     Due to the fact that most of the problems involved are of a theoretical nature, delegations are only requested to describe the prevailing attitude in the national legal community about conciseness of judgements (e.g., in some countries, judges believe that very short judgments reinforce the authority of the judgement; in some other countries, judges feel obliged, or are obliged by the law, to adequately explain in writing, for example, the criteria and calculations adopted to award damages or to make orders related to costs).

As to simplified procedures, please indicate (and provide details) if law or court practice, even if on the basis of "protocols", allow in your country:

(i)        simplified methods of commencing litigation;

(ii)       no hearing or convening of only one hearing or, as the occasion may require, of a preliminary preparatory hearing;

(iii)      exclusively written or oral proceedings, as the case may be;

(iv)       prohibition or restriction of certain exceptions and defences;

(v)        more flexible rules of evidence;

(vi)       no adjournments or only brief adjournments;

(vii)      the appointment of a court expert, either "ex officio" or on application of the parties, if possible at the commencement of the proceedings;

(viii)     an active role for the court in conducting the case and in calling for and taking evidence;

(ix)       the rendering on the part of the judge of a mere "oral" judgement.

As to summary proceedings (in which the examination of the case on the part of the judge is done on the basis of what is only evident), please indicate if in your country:

4.1       the judge has the power to decide summarily on:

(i)        disputes on which an early decision is required (urgent cases procedure);

(ii)       disputes concerning recovery of certified uncontested debts;

(iii)      small claims (please specify monetary limit);

(iv)       employeremployee relations;

(v)        landlord and tenant relations;

(vi)       questions of family relations (divorce, custody of children, maintenance);

(vii)      disputes involving consumers;

(viii)     disputes relating to road accidents;

(ix)       manifestly illfounded claims.

4.2       a summary judgement has or does not have the force of "res judicata";

4.3       a summary judgement is liable to determine rights and obligations of the parties even if a procedure on the merits is not initiated.

Please describe the extent to which injunction relief is available in your system (judicial orders of payment or to perform contractual obligations).

Please describe the relevance of timelimits and interlocutory judgements to assure a reasonable duration of ordinary proceedings.

What protective measures are available in your system? You may refer to protective measures aimed to protecting the practicability of enforcement, or to anticipate enforcement; protective measures aimed to "freezing" a certain situation of fact pending the trial, e.g. through appointment of a receiver; measures that can be indicated as protective in a very broad sense, since they aim at anticipating the decision in the substance of the case. Please specify the cases in which urgency is required, and cases in which remedies may be granted without both parties having been heard.

Does your system provide, besides protective measures in view of the taking of evidence (provisional hearing of witnesses, experts reports, site inspections, taking of samples), also measures that enhance the possibility for the plaintiff to gather information before the trial (see the Anton Piller order in the English experience)?

In what circumstances is a first degree judgement provisionally enforceable? If provisional enforcement is granted by the judge or by the law, upon which conditions the party filing an appeal may obtain suspension of enforcement?

Please describe implementation in your country of Recommendation No. R (95) 5 concerning the introduction and improvement of the functioning of appeal systems and procedures in civil and commercial cases. Under what circumstances, if any, is a court decision not subject to appeal? Is in your country in force a system that admits appeal, at least for some disputes, only upon court leave? If not, would such a system be desirable?

Please express your view concerning measures to improve:

(i)        enforcement of court judgements and effectiveness of the activity of enforcement agents;

(ii)       transparency of information concerning assets of debtors;

(iii)      recognition of judicial decisions rendered by judges from another Member State of the Council of Europe.

c) in criminal matters

Please describe, in general, implementation in your country of Recommendations No. R (87) 18 concerning the simplification of criminal justice and No. R (95) 12 on the management of criminal justice. Some specific aspects will be dealt with by following questions.

Please specify characteristics of procedures existing in your country that may qualified as accelerated, simplified, and/or summary. Please refer to materials (available on the Council of Europe's website) presented during the European Conference of Judges on the theme "Early settlement of disputes and the role of judges" held in Strasbourg, 2425 November 2003 (although these materials mainly concern civil justice).

Please indicate (and provide details) if in your country:

(i)        discretionary decisions to waive or discontinue proceedings are possible, although adequate evidence of guilt has been found (please identify cases and competent authorities);

(ii)       mass offences such as road traffic, tax and customs law, if they are minor, are decriminalised;

(iii)      outofcourt settlements are possible;

(iv)       penal orders such as those described in Recommendation No. R (87) 18, or equivalent simplified proceedings are employed (please provide information as to percentage of crimes so tried);

(v)        the procedure of "guilty plea" (whereby the alleged offender is required to appear at an early stage to declare whether he or she accepts charges, and court may decide the case in an accelerated way without investigations), or equivalent procedures are employed;

(vi)       declarations of voidness of proceedings are limited to cases in which failure to comply with procedural requirements have caused real damage to the interest of the defence or prosecution;

(vii)      notification of summons and decisions of the court is done through simple, rapid procedures, including by mail;

(viii)     trial court is exempted, when parties agree or the case is not serious, from issuing the decision in writing (please also refer to simplified forms of written decisions).

Please describe the role of the bench in the several stages of investigations (concentrating on the three stages referred to Principle III, a.6 of Recommendation No. R (87) 18). Please also describe the role of the bench as to "guilty pleas" and sentencing, if such phases may take place out of court. Please describe the respective role of professional judges and juries in findings of guilt and determination of penalties, in those cases that are tried before a jury.

Le questionnaire sur la gestion des affaires pénales pourrait ainsi porter sur :

     Le délai moyen de traitement des affaires dans la procédure ordinaire,

     Les mesures prises pour accélérer le jugement des affaires pénales,

     Le rôle du juge et des autres organes de l’Etat dans le déroulement de la procédure pénale et le jugement des affaires,

     L’utilisation de la médiation en matière pénale.

C.        QUESTIONNAIRE ON CASE MANAGEMENT, JUDGES' ROLE IN TRIALS, AND ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION METHODS

a)         ACCESS TO JUSTICE

1.         Have measures been taken, by legislatures and/or the court system, in order to inform the public on the functioning of the judicial system? If so, please comment on the impact of such actions on the amount of cases brought before courts.

2.         Have measures been taken, by legislatures and/or the court system, in order to reduce the costs of bringing actions before the courts (e.g., by simplifying and/or standardizing legal documents to commence or continue litigation; by waiving, at least in some circumstances, the need to employ a lawyer; etc.). If so, please comment on the impact of such actions on the amount of cases brought before courts.

3.         Have measures been taken to ensure an effective "legal aid" system? If so, please describe the system, with specific reference to: a) eligibility requirements; b) identification of authorities entitled to grant the aid; c) budgetary arrangements.

b)         REDUCTION OF EXCESSIVE WORKLOADS IN THE COURTS

1.         Have measures been taken to relieve judges from non-judicial tasks such as those listed, as examples, in the Appendix of Rec. No. R (86) 12 ? Please give comments as to any other tasks performed by judges that, according to the particular circumstances of the country, could be assigned to other persons or bodies; please identify tasks that could be entrusted to administrative court staff, whose jobs would thus be enriched.

2.         Are there bodies, outside the judicial system, at the disposal of parties to solve specific "small claims" disputes? If so, please comment on the impact of the availability of such procedures on the amount of cases brought before courts.

3.         Is there a regular review of court workloads, and are consequent measures (i.e. changes in courts' geographical distributions; variations in the territorial, monetary and subject matter competence of courts; variations in the court personnel) taken to ensure a balanced distribution of the workload? Please identify bodies responsible for such review and for consequent policy choices; please also describe the role of the judiciary in this process.

4.         What role do judges (especially chief judges) play in the management of judicial infrastructures, human resources, information and technology equipment? Do they receive regular training in management techniques? What role, on the contrary, is played by administrative top officials?

c)         QUALITY OF JUSTICE AND ITS ASSESSMENT; QUANTITATIVE STATISTICAL DATA; MONITORING PROCEDURES

1.         Is there any system in operation in your country having the aim of assessing quality of judicial activity? Please comment on indicators chosen for such assessments, as well as on results obtained.

2.         Please describe the operation of quantitative statistical data collection concerning judicial activity. Please identify, in particular:

i) institutional subjects (centralised and/or decentralised) in charge of data collection, data analysis, as well as receiving follow-up;

ii) judicial activities that form the object of data collection and analysis;

iii) relevance of statistical data in professional evaluation of individual judges;

iv) relevance of statistical data in evaluation of performance of judicial offices and/or chief judges.

3.         Please describe monitoring procedures in operation in your country that, employing assessment data as above, may result into actions aimed at a better control of reasonable duration of proceedings or better allocation of resources (such as variations of judicial and/or administrative staff, revision of territorial or subject matter distribution of cases, "performance contracts" and the like);

4.         In case that some or all of the above actions are the task of agencies other than the judiciary, what is the role played by the judiciary in the same actions?

d)         ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

            d.1)      In general

1.         Please produce a list of ADR schemes in operation in your country, identifying private and public schemes, generalist and specialised schemes (both according to qualities of litigants and subject matter, with especial reference to family mediation, criminal mediation, administrative and civil mediation), voluntary and mandatory schemes (please clarify if your system allows that access to court is barren for some disputes, and that litigants should resort to ADR schemes only). Please specify if the parties or the State bear the costs of ADR.

2.         Are there legal provisions ensuring State supervision over ADR agencies, as well as training of mediators?

3.         Is legal aid applicable to all or some ADR procedures?

4.         Is confidentiality protected? Is any document of the ADR procedure apt to be produced in court, in case mediation failed?

5.         May the judge consider refusal to access ADR or to accept an amicable settlement in order to decide on trial expenses?

            d.2)      In-court ADR

1.         What is the role of the judge in mediation during a court proceeding? May the judge recommend or order that the parties appear before a mediator, even without their consent? May the judge serve himself or herself as a mediator or a conciliator, or is a conflict of role envisaged? If so, please indicate solutions found. Please give details as to costs of the in-court mediation.

2.         If the judge is entitled, by law or court practice, to appoint a mediator or a conciliator, what qualifications do these subjects have? What training have they received? What responsibilities do they incur? How is their independence guaranteed? Is equality among the parties guaranteed, so that no unfair agreement is concluded?

3.         What legal relevance does an in-court conciliation or mediation agreement have (in particular, as to its enforcement)? Are there specific provisions for agreements reached before certain accredited mediators and/or endorsed by a judicial homologation?

            d.3)      Out-of-court ADR

1.         What kind of judicial control is possible on out-of-court ADR agreements?

            d.4.)     ADR in administrative law disputes

1.         Is it possible under your system that a public entity participates in an ADR procedure? Does the person representing the entity have the power to settle the dispute, or is an administrative proceeding needed to conclude the amicable settlement?

            d.5.      Criminal law and ADR

1.         Please describe the role and extent of ADR proceedings vis-à-vis criminal investigations and/or criminal proceedings in your country. What are the respective roles of police, public prosecution and the judge?

e)         CASE MANAGEMENT

            e.1)      In general

1.         Please give details as to the average duration of a civil and a criminal proceeding (where charges are brought against an identified individual) in your country, with separate figures as to first degree and appellate proceedings, as well as supreme court proceedings. Please provide relevant information as to data used to calculate the average. Please also give details as to duration of simplified and accelerated procedures. Please state the source of data.

2.         Does in general the judge have sufficient powers to control the parties' activities, to choose between written or oral procedures, to resort to a summary judgement, to determine the calendar and the time-limits for presentation of arguments and evidence, to sanction delaying tactics and/or abusive behaviours?

3.         Have measures been taken to assure that most cases are adjudicated by a single judge, rather than by a panel?

            e.2)      In civil disputes

1.         Please describe, in general, implementation in your country of Recommendation No. R (84) 5 concerning Principles of civil procedure designed to improve the functioning of justice. Some specific aspects will be dealt with by following questions.

2.         Please specify characteristics of procedures existing in your country that may qualified as accelerated, simplified, and/or summary. Please refer to materials (available on the Council of Europe's website) presented during the European Conference of Judges on the theme "Early settlement of disputes and the role of judges" held in Strasbourg, 24-25 November 2003.

3.         As to simplified procedures, please indicate (and provide details) if law or court practice, even if on the basis of "protocols", allow in your country:

- simplified methods of commencing litigation;

- no hearing or convening of only one hearing or, as the occasion may require, of a preliminary preparatory hearing;

- exclusively written or oral proceedings, as the case may be;

- prohibition or restriction of certain exceptions and defences;

- more flexible rules of evidence;

- no adjournments or only brief adjournments;

- the appointment of a court expert, either "ex officio" or on application of the parties, if possible at the commencement of the proceedings;

- an active role for the court in conducting the case and in calling for and taking evidence;

- the rendering on the part of the judge of a mere "oral" judgement.

4.         As to summary proceedings (in which the examination of the case on the part of the judge is done on the basis of what is only evident), please indicate if in your country:

            - the judge has the power to decide summarily on:

a) disputes on which an early decision is required (urgent cases procedure);

b) disputes concerning recovery of certified uncontested debts;

c) small claims (please specify monetary limit);

d) employer-employee relations;

e) landlord and tenant relations;

f) questions of family relations (divorce, custody of children, maintenance);

g) disputes involving consumers;

h) disputes relating to road accidents;

i) manifestly ill-founded claims.

            - a summary judgement has or does not have the force of "res judicata";

- a summary judgement is liable to determine rights and obligations of the parties even if a procedure on the merits is not initiated.

5.         Please describe the extent to which injunction relief is available in your system (judicial orders of payment or to perform contractual obligations).

6.         Please describe the relevance of time-limits and interlocutory judgements to assure a reasonable duration of ordinary proceedings.

7.         What protective measures are available in your system? You may refer to protective measures aimed to protecting the practicability of enforcement, or to anticipate enforcement; protective measures aimed to "freezing" a certain situation of fact pending the trial, e.g. through appointment of a receiver; measures that can be indicated as protective in a very broad sense, since they aim at anticipating the decision in the substance of the case. Please specify the cases in which urgency is required, and cases in which remedies may be granted without both parties having been heard.

8.         Does your system provide, besides protective measures in view of the taking of evidence (provisional hearing of witnesses, experts reports, site inspections, taking of samples), also measures that enhance the possibility for the plaintiff to gather information before the trial (see the Anton Piller order in the English experience)?

9.         In what circumstances is a first degree judgement provisionally enforceable? If provisional enforcement is granted by the judge or by the law, upon which conditions the party filing an appeal may obtain suspension of enforcement?

10.       Please describe implementation in your country of Recommendation No. R (95) 5 concerning the introduction and improvement of the functioning of appeal systems and procedures in civil and commercial cases. Under what circumstances, if any, is a court decision not subject to appeal?

11.       Please express your view concerning measures to improve:

- enforcement of court judgements and effectiveness of the activity of enforcement agents;

- transparency of information concerning assets of debtors;

- recognition of judicial decisions rendered by judges from another Member State of the Council of Europe.

e.3)      In criminal matters

1.         Please describe, in general, implementation in your country of Recommendations No. R (87) 18 concerning the Simplification of criminal justice and No. R (95) 12 on the management of criminal justice. Some specific aspects will be dealt with by following questions.

2.         Please specify characteristics of procedures existing in your country that may qualified as accelerated, simplified, and/or summary. Please refer to materials (available on the Council of Europe's website) presented during the European Conference of Judges on the theme "Early settlement of disputes and the role of judges" held in Strasbourg, 24-25 November 2003 (although these materials mainly concern civil justice).

3.         Please indicate (and provide details) if in your country:

- discretionary decisions to waive or discontinue proceedings are possible, although adequate evidence of guilt has been found (please identify cases and competent authorities);

- mass offences such as road traffic, tax and customs law, if they are minor, are decriminalised;

- out-of-court settlements are possible;

- penal orders such as those described in Recommendation No. R (87) 18, or equivalent simplified proceedings are employed (please provide information as to percentage of crimes so tried);

- the procedure of "guilty plea" (whereby the alleged offender is required to appear at an early stage to declare whether he or she accepts charges, and court may decide the case in an accelerated way without investigations), or equivalent procedures are employed;

- declarations of voidness of proceedings are limited to cases in which failure to comply with procedural requirements have caused real damage to the interest of the defence or prosecution;

- notification of summons and decisions of the court is done through simple, rapid procedures, including by mail;

- trial court is exempted, when parties agree or the case is not serious, from issuing the decision in writing (please also refer to simplified forms of written decisions);

4.         Please describe the role of the bench in the several stages of investigations (concentrating on the three stages referred to Principle III, a.6 of Recommendation No. R (87) 18). Please also describe the role of the bench as to "guilty pleas" and sentencing, if such phases may take place out of court.

IV. ACTION REQUISITE ACTION

Les Deéleégations to thedu CCJE aresont invitéed to s à end thvoyer au Secreétariat thlese reéplionses to theau questionnaire bypar email avanot later than 23 March1er Mmarchs 2004.

OoO

D.2.     Please provide relevant information (e.g. summarising contents) as to theoretical studies existing in your country in the above mentioned field(s).



[1]See Preliminary Draft Revised Specific Terms of Reference of the CCJE for 2004 aAnd 2005.

[2] See, e.g., ECHR, Sunday Times (No. 1), 55, where the notions mentioned in the text are said to be included in the phrase "authority of the judiciary" contained in art. 10 of the Convention.

[3] A basic reference list of case law of the European Court of Human Rights concerning most subjects dealt with in section C.2. of the Explanatory Note and Questionnaire may include (in alphabetical order): Allenet De Ribemont v. France; Amihalachioaie v. Moldova; B. v. the United Kingdom and P. v. the United Kingdom; Barfod v. Denmark; De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium; Du Roy and Malaurie v. France; Gaskin v. the United Kingdom; Hrico v. Slovakia; Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom; Perna v. Italy; Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria; Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom.