Strasbourg, 20 December 2005 CEPEJ (2005) 16 Rev.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
6th Plenary Meeting
Strasbourg, 7 - 9 December 2005
MEETING rEPORT
|
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE CEPEJ The CEPEJ: § welcomed the quality of the interventions and debates of the study session on: “The evaluation of the quality of justice and the independence of judges: how far can we go?", § noted with satisfaction the interest shown and the support given by the President of the European Court of Human Rights to the ongoing work of the CEPEJ and underlined that it will pursue the development of appropriate relationships with the European Court of Human Rights and the other instances within the Council of Europe responsible for the protection of human rights, § invited the Committee of Ministers to take the appropriate measures to ensure that the selection, collection and processing of relevant information for evaluating judicial systems in Europe are undertaken in a coordinated and structured way, making best use of the expertise of the CEPEJ, § adopted the "Checklist of indicators for the analysis of lengths of proceedings in the justice system" (CEPEJ (2005) 12 Rev), invited member states which have not yet done so far to designate as soon as possible one court to be part of the Network of pilot courts, § agreed to carry on the evaluation exercise so in order to adopt the Report at its first plenary meeting in 2006, therefore invited member states to respect strictly the deadline of 15 January 2006 and for submitting the responses to the Scheme to the Secretariat and noted that the CEPEJ could not guarantee that responses submitted after this date could be taken into account in the final report, invited member states which have not yet designated a national correspondent responsible for coordinating the collection of national data to do so without delay, agreed to conduct the preparation of the report in close cooperation with the network of national correspondents, which will meet to discuss the draft report before it is submitted to the plenary meeting of the CEPEJ, entrusted the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL to prepare a methodology as regards the publication and dissemination of the data, § adopted the Action Plan prepared by the CEPEJ to the European Committee of Legal Cooperation (CDCJ) on the implementation of the Opinions of the European Council of European Judges (CCJE) (CEPEJ (2005)11), § adopted the report: "Examination of problems related to the execution of decisions by national civil courts against the state and its bodies in the Russian Federation" (CEPEJ (2005) 8) and agreed to pursue cooperation with the Russian Federation in 2006 accordingly, § took note of the oral report made on the seminar on “Practical ways of combating delays in the justice system, excessive workloads of judges and case backlogs” (Ljubljana, 27 – 28 September 2005) concerning Croatia and Slovenia and noted the proposal of the two countries to continue their cooperation within the framework of the CEPEJ, § adopted its Medium-term activity programme (CEPEJ (2005)10) as a key document for future work showing the working principles and the medium-term priorities and subsequently adopted its programme of activities for 2006 (CEPEJ (2005) 9),
§ invited its members to propose experts before 15 January 2006 to be part of the Working group on mediation (CEPEJ-GT-MED) in accordance with the mandate of this group. § welcomed the growing success of the European Day of Civil Justice co-organised with the European Commission and invited all member states to develop initiatives within this framework in 2006 to bring citizens closer to their justice system, § welcomed the success of the first edition of the European Prize for innovative practices contributing to the quality of civil justice: "the Crystal Scales of Justice", and invited judicial institutions in all member states to participate in the next edition of this competition, § supported the joint organisation by the Council of Europe and the European Commission in 2006 of a conference addressing the articulation of efficiency and fairness of justice through concrete cases. § noted with satisfaction the report by the Japanese delegation on judicial reforms in its country and welcomed the interest shown by Japan in the work of the CEPEJ, § thanked the observers for their contribution, invited them to contribute specifically to the implementation of its medium term activity programme and agreed to strengthen its cooperation with them and develop a methodological framework accordingly, decided to renew the observer status with the CEPEJ for the observer organisations and to extend this status for a two-year period, § welcomed its new web site due to be online soon and expressed the wish that this web site be easily accessible from the portal of the web site of the Council of Europe as a reference working tool made available to the European legal community by the CEPEJ within the framework of its Statute, § elected Mr Ciaran KELLY (Ireland) as member of the Bureau replacing Mr Pim ALBERS (the Netherlands) until the end of the terms of office of the Bureau. ITEMS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS The CEPEJ: § agreed on the need for the Council of Europe to send a clear political message to other international and European institutions, in particular the European Union, to ensure that international efforts to evaluate judicial systems complement each other, unnecessary duplication is avoided and the transparency of the evaluation process and its results is guaranteed, and therefore invited the Committee of Ministers to take the appropriate measures to ensure that the selection, collection and processing of relevant information for evaluating judicial systems in Europe are undertaken in a coordinated and structured way, making best use of the expertise of the CEPEJ. § invited also the Committee of Ministers to: a. take note of: - the "Checklist of indicators for the analysis of lengths of proceedings in the justice system" (CEPEJ (2005) 12 Rev), - the Action Plan prepared by the CEPEJ to the European Committee of Legal Cooperation (CDCJ) on the implementation of the Opinions of the European Council of European Judges (CCJE) (CEPEJ (2005) 11), - the Report: "Examination of problems related to the execution of decisions by national civil courts against the state and its bodies in the Russian Federation" (CEPEJ (2005) 8), - its Medium-term activity programme (CEPEJ (2005) 10) as a key document for future work showing the working principles and the medium-term priorities, - its Programme of activities for 2006 (CEPEJ (2005) 9), b. take note that the CEPEJ: - agreed to carry on the next exercise for evaluating European judicial systems so as to be able to adopt the Report at its first plenary meeting in 2006, - invited member states to respect strictly the deadline of 15 January 2006 for submitting the responses to the Scheme to the Secretariat, - did not guarantee that responses submitted after this date can be taken into account in the final Report, - invited member states which have not yet designated a national correspondent responsible for coordinating the collection of national data to do so without delay, c. take note of the present report as a whole. |
1. The European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) held its 6th plenary meeting at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg from 7 to 9 December 2005. The meeting was chaired by Mr Eberhard DESCH (Germany), Chair of the CEPEJ.
2. The agenda appears in Appendix I and the list of participants in Appendix II.
1. Study session of the CEPEJ: “The evaluation of the quality of justice and the independence of judges: how far can we go?"
3. The CEPEJ addressed as a preliminary internal reflection possible ways of reconciling the independence and impartiality of the judges with the need for an objective evaluation of the quality of the public service of justice to strengthen both the efficiency of judicial policies and the satisfaction of the users as well as the confidence of the community in its justice system.
4. On the basis of introductory presentations by Mr Alister COOK (Judicial Policy Directorate, Department for Constitutional Affairs, United Kingdom) and by Mr Kari KIESILAINEN (Head of Department of Judicial Administration, Ministry of Justice, Finland) the CEPEJ discussed in particular to what extent quantitative and qualitative evaluation criteria can be established with useful indicators to be considered equally by the judge, decision makers and the public as effective and in accordance with fundamental principles.
The presentations of the speakers appear in Appendix III to this Report.
5. The quality of the interventions and debates about new methods for assessing the work of judge was considered as a useful input to the work of the CEPEJ, to be further developed in particular within the framework of its activities on court management as foreseen in the CEPEJ Medium term activity programme.
2. Information by the President of the CEPEJ and the Secretariat
6. The President of the CEPEJ forwarded the apologies of the Director General of Legal Affairs, Mr Guy DE VEL, who could not attend the meeting because of last minute commitments outside Strasbourg. He stressed in particular that the CEPEJ was coming to a watershed:
§ enjoying a strong political support from the 3rd Summit of the Heads of State and government of the Council of Europe (Warsaw, 16 – 17 May 2006) and the Committee of Ministers, including through substantial budgetary efforts dedicated to the development of the work of the CEPEJ,
§ being supported in its activities for evaluating judicial systems in several declarations of the Vice President of the European Commission responsible for Justice, Liberties and Security, Mr Franco FRATTINI and
§ becoming a reference among the European legal community.
Therefore the CEPEJ was facing huge responsibilities to fulfil high expectations and produce concrete results.
7. The President of the CEPEJ informed the experts that as part of the hearing to which he had been invited during the 936th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies (7 September 2005), the Ministers' Deputies had approved the CEPEJ 2004 Activity Report as well as the revised Scheme for evaluating European judicial systems (CEPEJ (2005)2 Rev 2). He mentioned that one delegation insisted on the need to avoid duplications with the European Union as regards the evaluation of judicial systems.
8. The Secretariat informed the CEPEJ that within the framework of the monitoring carried out by the Committee of Ministers the execution of judicial decisions had been selected as the topic to be examined in 2006.
9. The President of the CEPEJ indicated that he attended the annual meeting of the European Union of Rechtsfleger (EUR) in Lisbon on 28 - 30 September 2005 where he was warmly welcome. EUR showed a great interest in the work of the Commission. A special EUR working party had been set up to follow the work of the CEPEJ and reply to its requests (for comments on projects, information, etc).
10. Mr DESCH reported also on the annual seminar of the International Union of Judicial Officers (UIHJ) on the contribution made by institutions to the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice, held in Reims on 3 and 4 November 2005 and at which he had been present. UIHJ members had expressed keen interest in the current and future work of the CEPEJ and were planning to enter the 2nd “Crystal Scales of Justice” competition in 2006.
11. The CEPEJ welcomed this close and regular cooperation with the representatives of the judicial professions.
12. The Secretariat informed the Commission that the 8th Conference of the Presidents of the European Supreme Courts would take place in Paris on 26 – 27 October 2006 on "The access to Supreme Court" at the invitation of the First President of the French Court of Cassation, Mr Guy CANIVET. This event would be part of the European Day of Civil Justice and could be a framework to award the Crystal Scales of Justice.
13. The Secretary of the CEPEJ indicated that he spent a very fruitful training week within the first instance court of Saverne (France) to be acquainted with the day to day functioning of a court, spending time between various judges, prosecutors and court clerks. He proposed that such training be repeated for the members of the Secretariat in various types of courts and various member states, to make it sure that the work carried out by the Secretariat remained in line with the concrete realities of justice systems.
3. Exchange of views with Mr Luzius WILDHABER, President of the European Court of Human Rights
14. The CEPEJ invited the President of the European Court of Human Rights, Mr Luzius WILDHABER, for an exchange of views on the perspectives for the development of the mechanisms for the protection of human rights and the possible role of the CEPEJ to contribute to the proper application of the European Convention of Human Rights in working towards the improvement of justice systems in the member states.
15. Mr WILDHABER underlined that the CEPEJ could first of all contribute to the effective implementation of the Convention by supporting European citizens who were seeking for justice within their domestic judicial systems so that they can find proper from these systems.
16. He stressed that the Court was facing an exponential number of cases (82 000 pending cases, including 7 250 backlog cases) which made it necessary to find solutions as regards both the procedures and the resources.
17. Protocol 14 (20 ratifications and 25 signatures) was expected to enter into force in the course of 2006. The Group of Wise Persons set up by the 3rd Summit of the Heads of State and Government would also come with proposals to improve the mechanisms.
18. Mr WILDHABER mentioned in particular that the way of addressing repetitive cases was an important issue for a smoother control of the Convention.
19. The CEPEJ informed the President of its on-going work regarding timeframes of proceedings. Mr WILDHABER strongly encouraged the CEPEJ to pursue its work and indicated that the Court remained interested by any documents which would be officially forwarded by the Commission.
20. The CEPEJ underlined that it would pursue the development of appropriate relationships with the European Court of Human Rights and the other instances within the Council of Europe responsible for the protection of human rights.
4. Relations between the CEPEJ and the other bodies taking into account the efficiency of judicial systems
21. Following the report presented by Mr André POTOCKI (France), the CEPEJ agreed to pursue its work in developing, in accordance with its Statute, appropriate relationships with the relevant standard setting and consultative bodies within the Council of Europe (in particular the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE), the Consultative Council of European Prosecutors (CCPE), the European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ), the European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC), the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH), the Venice Commission and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
22. Mr POTOCKI also stressed the relevance for other international and European institutions of the process for evaluating judicial systems:
§ it is a key element of the mutual confidence between judicial systems within the European Union and the smooth application of the EU instruments for judicial cooperation,
- underlined by the European Council in The Hague in November 2004(paragraph 3.2 of The Hague Programme specifically acknowledges the importance of evaluation as a basis for mutual trust and recognition),
- under preliminary discussion within the European Commission,
- addressed by the European Parliament through the Report prepared by Mr António COSTA on the quality of criminal justice and the harmonisation of criminal law in the EU member states;
§ it has a strong interest for the World Bank which might launch a new study: "Doing justice" to support its exercise on "Doing business".
23. Mr DESCH reminded that the Director General of Legal Affairs and himself were invited by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs of the European Parliament (Brussels, 18 January 2005) to present the report of the CEPEJ. This report was welcomed by the European Parliament and the Vice-President of the European Commission, Franco FRATTINI, and considered as a reference for future work of the European Union.
24. Several members insisted on the need for the CEPEJ to present widely the concrete results of its evaluation exercise and to make know that the CEPEJ would enter into a regular evaluation process, in accordance with the Action Plan of the 3rd Summit of the Heads of State and Government.
25. The CEPEJ regretted that neither the European Commission nor the World Bank were represented in this meeting.
26. The CEPEJ agreed on the need for the Council of Europe to send a clear political message to other international and European institutions, in particular the European Union, to ensure that international efforts to evaluate judicial systems complement each other, unnecessary duplication is avoided and the transparency of the evaluation process and its results is guaranteed.
27. Therefore the CEPEJ invited the Committee of Ministers to take the appropriate measures to ensure that the selection, collection and processing of relevant information for evaluating judicial systems in Europe are undertaken in a coordinated and structured way, making best use of the expertise of the CEPEJ.
5. Co-operation with the European Union
28. Following the report of Mr Georg STAWA (Austria), the CEPEJ welcomed the growing success of the European Day of Civil Justice co-organised with the European Commission. It thanked the United Kingdom as Presidency of the European Union for having organised the main event of the European Day 2005 in Edinburgh (24 – 26 October 2005) through the Conference: "Justice for all".
29. The Secretariat called on all CEPEJ members to provide it as soon as possible with information on the national events organised within the framework of the European Day so that they can appear on the CEPEJ web site. 10 countries had been registered so far.
30. The member of the CEPEJ in respect of Germany indicated the proposal of the German authorities to host the main event of the European Day of Civil Justice in 2007 in Aachen, as a symbolic venue for judicial cooperation in Europe.
31. Within the framework of the Edinburgh Conference took place the first-ever award ceremony for the Crystal Scales of Justice – the European prize for innovative practice contributing to the efficiency of civil justice – whose the 11 member Jury composed of eminent European lawyers was chaired by Ms Jana WURSTOVA (Czech Republic).
32. 22 judicial institutions participated in this competition, 7 projects were honoured among which 3 were shortlisted: the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia (Court Annexed Mediation and Accelerated Civil Litigation Program at Ljubljana District Court), the Austrian Ministry of Justice (Reform of Law Enforcement - “FEX-project”) as well as the Courts in the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal of Rovaniemi (Quality Project in court) which were awarded the Prize by the Deputy Secretary of the Council of Europe, Ms Maud de BOER-BUQUICCHIO and the Director for Civil justice, fundamental rights and citizenship within the European Commission, Mr Francisco FONSECA MORILLO.
33. Details of the 7 projects singled out by the Jury appeared on the CEPEJ web site. A publication would also be produced to ensure that the initiatives were widely disseminated.
34. The CEPEJ invited judicial institutions in all member states to participate in the next edition of this competition aiming at highlighting useful practices in line with its core activity.
35. Mr STAWA also informed the Commission about the participation of several CEPEJ members in training seminars on judicial issues organised in South-Eastern Europe within the framework of the CARDS-justice programme, funded by the European Commission and implemented by a consortium headed by the Austrian authorities, with the active participation of the Council of Europe. It was underlined that the work of the CEPEJ had been used as a main reference. The CEPEJ encouraged its members to further participate in the CARDS-justice programme when solicited by the Secretariat of the Council of Europe, so that the programme can benefit from the specific network of expertise provided for by the CEPEJ.
36. The Secretariat informed the experts that a Conference jointly organised by the European Commission and the Council of Europe was under preparation to take place in November 2006, addressing through concrete cases the articulation of efficiency and fairness of justice. The CEPEJ would be closely associated to this event.
6. Implementation of the Framework-Programme: "A new objective for European judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe "
37. Mr John STACEY (United Kingdom) presented the on-going activities of the Task Force on timeframes of proceedings (CEPEJ-TF-DEL) concerning:
§ the concrete knowledge of the situation of judicial timeframes in European States, through
- the study on timeframes in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (the scientific expert, Ms Françoise CALVEZ – France – had already submitted her interim report to the Task Force) and
- the study on "Time management in Nordic courts", implemented by the Finnish National Research Institute for Legal Policies National and supervised by Mr Jon JOHNSEN; the report was under preparation,
§ the preparation of concrete tools for policy makers and judicial institutions for implementing the Lines of Action of the CEPEJ Framework Programme:
- a Compendium of best practices, to be submitted to the CEPEJ plenary meeting at the end of 2006,
- a "Time management Checklist" (see below).
38. The CEPEJ underlined the essential role to be played by the Network of Pilot-courts that it set up to support its work:
§ in providing information and comments about their practices and views regarding the implementation of the Framework programme;
§ in acting as test beds for assessing the quality and/or advisability of various measures proposed by the CEPEJ (e.g. the checklist on time management or certain measures selected from the Compendium of Best Practices).
39. The Secretariat informed the experts on the proposal of the Romanian Presidency of the Council of Europe to host a meeting of the Network in Romania in the first week of April 2006 – the CEPEJ-TF-DEL could take this opportunity to hold its 4th meeting. The Network meeting could be articulated with the Conference to be organised by the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) on " national remedies in respect of length of proceedings".
40.The CEPEJ invited member states which have not done it so far to designate as soon as possible one court to be part of the Network of pilot courts.
41. It agreed to reserve a specific area for the Network of pilot-courts in its Web site and suggested to think about the means for making visible the courts' membership to the CEPEJ Network.
42. The Chairman of the CEPEJ-TF-DEL presented the draft "Checklist of indicators for the analysis of lengths of proceedings in the justice system" prepared by the Task Force as a tool for internal use of its stakeholders whose purpose is to help justice systems to collect appropriate information and analyze relevant aspects of the duration of judicial proceedings with a view to reduce undue delays, ensure effectiveness of the proceedings and provide necessary transparency and foreseeability to the users of the justice systems.
43. The CEPEJ discussed the document, proposed several amendments and adopted it (CEPEJ (2005) 12 Rev). It instructed the Secretariat to disseminate it widely to its stakeholders once the Committee of Ministers had taken note of it.
7. Evaluation of the European judicial systems
44.In her introductory report Ms Elsa MALTRAS de BLAS (Spain), referring to the Action Plan of the 3rd Summit of the Heads of State and Government, insisted on the specific task of the CEPEJ in evaluating judicial systems. The new process should take into account the conclusions of the pilot evaluation process.
45. The Secretariat reminded the proposed timetable for the evaluation process:
§ submission of data to the Secretariat no later than 15 January 2006,
§ data processing by scientific experts and the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL from February to May 2006,
§ discussion of the report by the 7th plenary meeting of the CEPEJ in July 2006 in view of its adoption.
46.Several members underlined that the respect of the timetable was essential to guarantee the credibility and usefulness of the evaluation report, concerning data of the year 2004. CEPEJ created high expectations among the member states and the European legal community from its pilot exercise. Delays in the process would postpone the adoption of the report and alter the accuracy of the data presented and commented.
47. The CEPEJ hold a tour de table where the experts informed the Commission on the stage of preparation of the responses to the Revised Scheme for evaluating judicial systems (CEPEJ (2005) 2 Rev 2). Several delegations welcomed the usefulness of the explanatory Note (CEPEJ (2005) 3 Rev) in answering the questionnaire as well as the friendly presentation of the Scheme.
48.Some delegations indicated that the Scheme had been submitted to various bodies (courts, prosecution offices, bar associations, etc.) to collect data.
The member in respect of Italy underlined that the responses would be submitted to the High Council of Justice and the Bar association before being submitted to the Council of Europe, to ensure the credibility of the exercise.
The member in respect of Luxembourg indicated that the deadline of 15 January 2006 could hardly be respected because of the lack of answers from the various bodies consulted. All other delegations confirmed that they would respect this deadline.
49.The CEPEJ invited member states to respect strictly the deadline of 15 January 2006 for submitting the responses to the Scheme to the Secretariat and noted that it could not guarantee that responses submitted after this date could be taken into account in the final report.
50. The CEPEJ insisted on the essential role to be played by the national correspondents entrusted with the coordination of the collection of national data, who should appear as the unique interlocutor of the Secretariat and the experts working on data processing. It invited member states which have not yet designated a national correspondent to do so without delay.
The CEPEJ agreed to conduct the preparation of the report in close cooperation with the network of national correspondents, which would meet to discuss the draft report before it is submitted to the plenary meeting of the CEPEJ, probably in May 2006.
51. The CEPEJ insisted on the need to pay particular attention to the dissemination of the data included in the report, to avoid misinterpretations of data by media and the public while guaranteeing the transparency of the exercise. It entrusted the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL to prepare a methodology as regards the publication and dissemination of the data, in accordance with its terms of reference.
8. Draft Action Plan prepared by the CEPEJ to the European Committee of Legal Cooperation (CDCJ) on the implementation of the Opinions of the European Council of European Judges (CCJE)
52. Mr Mathias HEGER (Germany) presented the draft Action Plan on the implementation of the Opinions of the European Council of European Judges (CCJE) prepared on the request of the European Committee of Legal Cooperation (CDCJ).
53. The representative of the CDCJ, Mr Inge Lorange BAKER, commended on the CEPEJ for the rapid follow up given to its request and indicated that the report would be analysed by the CDCJ at its next plenary meeting in 2006. The CDCJ would propose concrete actions to the Committee of Ministers accordingly.
54. The representative of the CCJE, Mr Gerhard REISSNER, commented on the draft, on the basis of the written observations submitted by the CCJE to the CEPEJ (CCJE (2005) OBS N°1). Moreover Mr REISSNER informed the CEPEJ that the CCJE would further work on the topic: "Justice and society".
55. The CEPEJ underlined that decisions on the recommendations of the Action Plan belonged to the CDCJ, taking into account the priorities defined by the Committee of Ministers and the financial resources available. It stressed in particular that the CDCJ would make its own order of priorities among the various recommendations.
56. After having discussed some amendments to the draft presented, the CEPEJ adopted the Action Plan (CEPEJ (2005)11).
9. Assistance activities of the CEPEJ to member States
57. Mr Michael VRONTAKIS (Greece) introduced the report prepared by the CEPEJ experts on request of the Russian Federation on: "Examination of problems related to the execution of decisions by national civil courts against the state and its bodies”. He indicated that the expert team, that he headed, paid a visit to Moscow in June 2005 to assess the situation and meet with the representatives of the relevant institutions, at the highest level. The preliminary report drafted further to this mission was discussed in Strasbourg in October 2005 and resulted in the final draft.
58. The member of CEPEJ in respect of the Russian Federation expressed the high appreciation of his authorities on this specific cooperation and indicated that they were already working on the implementation of several conclusions of the draft report. He informed the CEPEJ that the Russian Federation had officially submitted a request for follow up activities to take place in 2006 with the CEPEJ in order to work in depth on specific issues raised by the report.
59. The CEPEJ adopted the report (CEPEJ (2005) 8), which would be presented to the Russian authorities in a seminar to take place in Russia on 6 – 10 February 2006, and agreed to pursue cooperation with the Russian Federation accordingly.
60.The CEPEJ took note of the report presented by Ms Ivana BORZOVA (Czech Republic) on the seminar on “Practical ways of combating delays in the justice system, excessive workloads of judges and case backlogs” (Ljubljana, 27 – 28 September 2005) concerning Croatia and Slovenia. It was felt that the very detailed discussions would further the process of reform in the two member states. The representatives in respect of Croatia and Slovenia indicated that both countries were planning to continue their dialogue within the framework of the CEPEJ.
61. The member of the CEPEJ in respect of Armenia presented several request for cooperation as regards the setting up of judicial training schools, legal aid and the training of law enforcement agents. He was requested to submit his proposals by written.
62. The CEPEJ invited its members to communicate to the Secretariat before 15 January 2006 proposals for bilateral cooperation within the framework of the 2006 Activity programme, to be decided by the CEPEJ Bureau in February 2006.
10.Draft CEPEJ Medium-term activity programme and the draft Programme of activities of the CEPEJ for 2006
63. Mr Yves HUBERTY (Luxembourg) introduced the draft Medium-term activity programme of the CEPEJ and subsequently the draft Programme of activities for 2006.
64.The CEPEJ agreed that the Medium-term activity programme was set up as a key document for future work showing the working principles and the priorities of CEPEJ for the four coming years, but that it could be used with flexibility so that it could be adapted when the situation of judicial systems in Europe or the priorities further defined by the Committee of Ministers would make it necessary.
65. After having discussed it and proposed some amendments to the draft, the CEPEJ adopted its Medium-term activity programme (CEPEJ (2005)10).
66.It examined subsequently the draft Programme of activities for 2006 and welcomed the synthetic and clear presentation of the document, reminding that justifications of the activities proposed were to be found in the Medium-term activity programme. It decided in particular to set up (in addition to the two existing working groups which would pursue their mandate in 2006) a new working group entrusted with the assessment of the impact in the member states of the recommendations of the Council of Europe regarding mediation, taking into account the Action Plan adopted by the 3rd Summit of the Heads of State and Government.
67. After having discussed it and proposed some amendments, the CEPEJ adopted its Programme of activity for 2006 (CEPEJ (2005)9).
68.It invited its members to propose before 15 January 2006 experts to be part of the Working group on mediation (CEPEJ-GT-MED) in accordance with the mandate of this group. The Bureau would finally decide on the composition of the Group at its meeting in February 2006.
11. Election for the replacement of a member of the Bureau of the CEPEJ
69.The CEPEJ elected Mr Ciaran KELLY (Ireland) as member of the Bureau until the end of the terms of office of the Bureau (December 2006). Mr KELLY would replace Mr Pim ALBERS (the Netherlands) who resigned from his position to be seconded by the authorities of the Netherlands to the Secretariat of the CEPEJ as Special Advisor.
12. Observers
70. The delegation of Japan presented the on-going reforms of the Japanese judicial system. The presentation appears in Appendix IV to this Report. The CEPEJ warmly thanked the delegates coming especially from Japan and welcomed the strong interest shown by Japan in its work.
71. The CEPEJ hold an exchange of views with the representatives of the Council of the Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE), the European Association of Judges (EAJ), Magistrats Européens pour la Démocratie et les Libertés (MEDEL), the European Federation of Administrative Judges, the European Union of Rechtspfleger (EUR) and the International Union of Judicial Officers (UIHJ).
72. In general, the CEPEJ called on the observers to contribute as concretely as possible to its work, indicating in particular their main topics of interest.
73. It noted in particular the invitation by the CCBE to participate in the annual Presidential Conference. It also took note with satisfaction of the initiative of the EUR to set up a specific working commission to follow the work of the CEPEJ and prepare its own contribution to this work, as well as the proposition of the EUR to participate in the work of the CEPEJ-TF-DEL. The Bureau of the CEPEJ would take a decision on this last point at its meeting in February 2006.
74. The President of the CEPEJ reminded the active participation of the EUR and the UIHJ in the revision of the Scheme for evaluating judicial systems as well as the useful comments made by the EUR on the Framework programme on judicial timeframes. He also thanked the EUR for the excellent promotion of the work of the CEPEJ made through it Web site.
75. The CEPEJ agreed to strengthen its cooperation with the observers and to develop a methodological framework accordingly.
76. It decided to renew observer status with the CEPEJ for:
i. the Council of the Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE);
ii. the European Association of Judges (EAJ);
iii. Magistrats Européens pour la Démocratie et les Libertés (MEDEL)
iv. the European Federation of Administrative Judges;
iv. the European Union of Rechtspfleger (EUR);
vi. the International Union of Judicial Officers (UIHJ),
and to extent the observer status for a two year period.
13. Academic researches to be supported by the CEPEJ
77. Mr Fausto de SANTIS (Italy) explained the aim of the research carried on by Professor Daniela PIANA (University of Firenze) on the impact of international committees and international organisations on the judicial policies of states and invited the CEPEJ members to fulfil the anonymous questionnaire prepared in this context.
78. On the request of the member of the CEPEJ in respect of Croatia, the CEPEJ agreed that the course on "Public and private justice: dispute resolution in modern societies", organised in 2006 at the Inter-university Centre in Dubrovnik, takes place in cooperation with the CEPEJ.
79. The member of the CEPEJ in respect of the Netherlands stressed the research carried on by The Hague Institute for the Internationalisation of Law (HIIL) regarding national law in global society.
14. CEPEJ Web site
80.The Secretariat introduced the new CEPEJ web site being developed as a pilot site for the Directorate General of Legal Affairs, following the wishes expressed by the CEPEJ for a more efficient and friendly user Web site. The site would in particular facilitate a direct access to the documents, including the possibility to search for documents by key words.
81. CEPEJ files would be developed in this context, including relevant documents on specific topics under consideration by the CEPEJ, such as lengths of proceedings.
82. This site would also include country profiles presenting the relevant information on the member states, including the results of the process for evaluating judicial systems, information on the pilot courts, hyperlinks to relevant national bodies as well as information on situation or reforms of judicial systems. The CEPEJ called on its members to participate actively in the construction of these profiles by providing regularly the Secretariat with information to be included. The Secretariat also reminded the experts to send electronic pictures of court buildings to illustrate the site as well as other information documents of the CEPEJ.
83. The CEPEJ entrusted the Secretariat with the preparation of a specific note recalling the expectations so that the member States can participate in the development of the Web site.
84.The CEPEJ welcomed this new web site, due to be on line in the first quarter of 2006, and expressed the wishthat this web site be easily accessible from the portal of the web site of the Council of Europe as a reference working tool made available to the European legal community by the CEPEJ within the framework of its Statute. It entrusted the Secretariat to take appropriate contacts with the relevant services accordingly.
APPENDIX I
agenda
Study session of the CEPEJ: "The evaluation of the quality of justice and the independence of judges: how far can we go?"
1. Opening of the meeting
2. Adoption of the agenda
3. Intervention of Mr Luzius WILDHABER, President of the European Court of Human Rights, followed by a discussion with the CEPEJ
4. Information by the President of the CEPEJ and the Secretariat
5. Relations between the CEPEJ and the other entities, inside and outside the Council of Europe, taking into account the efficiency of judicial systems
Rapporteur: A. POTOCKI (France)
6. Implementation of the Framework-Programme: "A new objective for European judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe "
Rapporteur: J. STACEY (United Kingdom)
o Presentation of the ongoing works of the CEPEJ-TF-DEL
o Discussion of the draft checklist of indicators for the analysis of lengths of proceedings in the justice system in view of its adoption
o Discussion on the working methods of the CEPEJ with the pilot courts
7. Evaluation of the European judicial systems: working methodology and timetable for the preparation of the 2006 publication
Rapporteur: E. GARCIA MALTRAS DE BLAS (Spain)
o Round Table on the state of work concerning the collection of data in member States and on the designation of national correspondents
8. Examination of the draft Action Plan to the European Committee of Legal Cooperation (CDCJ) on the implementation of the Opinions of the European Council of European Judges (CCJE) in view of its adoption
Rapporteur: M. HEGER (Germany)
9. Assistance activities of the CEPEJ to member States
o Discussion of the report: "Examination of problems related to the execution of decisions by national civil courts against the state and its bodies in the Russian Federation" prepared by the CEPEJ experts in view of its adoption
Rapporteur: Mr Michael VRONTAKIS (Greece)
o Information on the Ljubljana Seminar on “Practical ways of combating delays in the justice system, excessive workloads of judges and case backlogs” (Croatia/Slovenia)
Rapporteur: Ms Ivana BORZOVA (Czech Republic)
o Proposals for assistance activities in 2006
10. Examination of the draft CEPEJ Medium-term activity programme and the draft Programme of activities of the CEPEJ for 2006, in view of their adoption
Rapporteur: Y. HUBERTY (Luxembourg)
11. Election for the replacement of a member of the Bureau of the CEPEJ
12. Co-operation with the European Union
Rapporteur: G. STAWA (Austria)
o 3rd edition of the European day of Civil justice and 1st edition of the Crystal Scales of Justice Award
o 2006 Joint Conference
13. Observers
o Information concerning their activities
o Renewal of their status
14. Academic researches (Thesis) to be supported by the CEPEJ
Rapporteur : F. DE SANTIS (Italy)
15. Presentation of the new Internet Website of the CEPEJ
16. Any other business
APPENDIX II
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS / LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS
STUDY SESSION / SESSION D’ETUDE - Speakers / Orateurs
Alistair COOK, Judicial Policy Directorate, LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM
Kari KIESILĀINEN, Director General, Ministry of Justice, HELSINKI, FINLAND
CEPEJ MEMBERS / MEMBRES DE LA CEPEJ
ALBANIA/ALBANIE
Genci CIFLIGU, Directeur Général de la codification, Ministère de la Justice, TIRANA
ANDORRA/ANDORRE
Carme OBIOLS, Secrétaire Générale, Conseil supérieur de la Justice, ANDORRE LA VIEILLE
ARMENIA/ARMENIE
Armen SANOYAN, Chief Specialist, Department of international Legal Affairs, Ministry of Justice, YEREVAN
AUSTRIA/AUTRICHE
Thomas GOTTWALD, Judge, Federal Ministry of Justice , VIENNA
Georg STAWA, Judge assigned to the Minister of Justice, Federal Ministry of Justice, VIENNA
AZERBAIJAN/AZERBAIDJAN
Ramin GURBANOV, Senior Adviser, Department of Organisation and Analysis, Ministry of Justice, BAKU
BELGIUM/BELGIQUE
Dietger GEERAERT, Attaché, Direction Générale de l'organisation judiciaire, Ministère fédéral de la Justice, BRUXELLES
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA/BOSNIE-HERZEGOVINE
Vlado ADAMOVIC, Judge, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, SARAJEVO
BULGARIA/BULGARIE
Galina TONEVA-DACHEVA, Judge at the Sofia Appellate Court, SOFIA
CROATIA/CROATIE
Alan UZELAC, Ph.D. Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb, ZAGREB (Member of the CEPEJ Bureau / Membre du Bureau de la CEPEJ)
CYPRUS/CHYPRE
Loukis SAVVIDES, Ex-Judge of the Supreme Court of Cyprus – Legal Consultant, LIMASSOL Apologised/Excusé
CZECH REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
Ivana BORZOVÁ, Head, Department of Civil Supervision, Ministry of Justice, PRAGUE
Jana WURSTOVA, Head, International Department, Czech Bar Association, PRAGUE
DENMARK/DANEMARK
Klaus Rugaard, Chief Adviser, Documentation and analyses, Danish Court Administration, COPENHAGEN
ESTONIA/ESTONIE
Margus SARAPUU, Deputy Secretary General on Court Administration, Ministry of Justice, TALLINN
FINLAND/FINLANDE
Kari Samuli KIESILĀINEN, Head of Department, Directorate General, Ministry of Justice, HELSINKI
FRANCE
André POTOCKI, Conseiller à la Cour de Cassation, PARIS (Vice President of the CEPEJ/Vice-Président de la CEPEJ)
GEORGIA/GEORGIE
Vladimer CHKHARTISHVILI, Head of International Legal Assistance Division of the Department of International Legal relations, Ministry of Justice, TBILISI
GERMANY/ALLEMAGNE
Eberhard DESCH, Head of Division of International Law, Federal Ministry of Justice, BERLIN (President the CEPEJ/Président de la CEPEJ)
Matthias HEGER, Chef du Service de Procédure civile internationale, Ministère fédéral de la justice, BERLIN
Gabriele MORAWITZ, Chef du bureau, Ministère de la Justice de Nord-Rhein Wesphalie, DÜSSELDORF
GREECE/GRECE
Michael VRONTAKIS, Vice-Président du Conseil d’Etat, ATHENES
HUNGARY/HONGRIE
Gabor SZEPLAKI-NAGY, Conseiller Référendaire à la Cour Suprême de Hongrie, Directeur du Bureau des Droits de l’Homme à la Cour Suprême de Hongrie, BUDAPEST
ICELAND/ISLANDE : Apologised / Excusé
IRELAND/IRLANDE
Denis BYRNE, Assistant Principal Officer, Courts Policy Division, Department of Justice Equality and Law Reform, DUBLIN
Ciaran KELLY, Principal Registrar High Court, Courts Service, Four Courts, DUBLIN
Iarflaith O'NEILL, Judge, the High Court, Four Courts, DUBLIN
ITALY/ITALIE
Fausto DE SANTIS, Directeur Général au sein du Bureau de l’organisation judiciaire, Ministère de la Justice, ROME
LATVIA/LETTONIE
Aija BRANTA, Judge of the Constitutional Court, RIGA
Agnida KARLSONE, Head of Public Relations Division of the Court Administration, RIGA
LIECHTENSTEIN : Apologised / Excusé
LITHUANIA/LITUANIE
Laima GARNELIENE, Head of Criminal Cases Division of the Lithuanian Court Appeal, VILNIUS
LUXEMBOURG
Yves HUBERTY, Attaché de Gouvernement, Ministère de la justice, LUXEMBOURG-KIRCHBERG
MALTA/MALTE
Ray ZAMMIT, Ministry representative, Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs, VALETTA
MOLDOVA
Diana SCOBIOALÀ, Chef de la Direction Agent du Gouvernement, Directrice adjointe du Département des relations extérieures et de l’intégration européenne, Ministère de la Justice, CHISINAU
MONACO
Jean CURRAU, Assistant référendaire près de la Cour d’Appel, MONACO
NETHERLANDS/PAYS‑BAS
Pim ALBERS, Senior Policy Advisor, Strategy Department for the Administration of Justice, Ministry of Justice, THE HAGUE (Member of the CEPEJ Bureau / Membre du Bureau de la CEPEJ)
NORWAY/NORVEGE
Merethe Baustad RANUM, Senior legal adviser, Judicial Department, National Court Administration, TRONDHEIM
POLAND/POLOGNE
PORTUGAL
João ARSENIO DE OLIVEIRA, Conseiller juridique, Bureau de la Politique législative et du Plan, Ministère de la Justice, LISBON
ROMANIA/ROUMANIE
Vasilica-Cristi DANILET, Juge, Conseiller du Ministre de la justice, Ministère de la Justice, BUCAREST
Alexandra Mihaela SINC, Prosecutor, Deputy Secretary General of the Superior Council of Magistracy, BUCHAREST
THE RUSSISAN FEDERATION/FEDERATION DE RUSSIE
Yury BERESTNEV, Senior State Legal Advisor, State Legal Directorate of the President of the Russian Federation (GGPU), MOSCOW
Mikhail VINOGRADOV, Lawyer, State Legal Directorate of the President of the Russian Federation (GGPU), MOSCOW
SAN‑MARINO/SAINT MARIN
SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO/SERBIE-MONTENEGRO
Nevenka MUGOSA, Senior Adviser, Ministry of Justice of Montenegro, PODGORICA
SLOVAK REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE SLOVAQUE
Igor BELKO, Judge, Supreme Court, BRATISLAVA
SLOVENIA/SLOVENIE
Marko SORLI, Vice President of the Supreme Court, LJUBLJANA
SPAIN/ESPAGNE
Elsa GARCIA-MALTRAS DE BLAS, Procureur, Conseillère à la Direction Générale de la coopération juridique internationale, Ministère de la Justice, MADRID
Ildefonso VILLÁN CRIADO, Magistrat, Chef de la Section de Statistiques judiciaires, Conseil Général du pouvoir judiciaire, MADRID
SWEDEN/SUEDE
Johan SANGBORN, Deputy Director, Division for Procedural Law and Court Issues, Ministry of Justice, STOCKHOLM
SWITZERLAND/SUISSE: Excusée / Apologised
"THE FORMER YOUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"/"L'EX-REPUBLIQUE YOUGOSLAVE DE MACEDOINE"
TURKEY/TURQUIE
Selda SAYGI, Investigative Judge, Minsitry of Justice, ANKARA
UKRAINE
Olesya BARTOVSHCHUK, Head of Civil and Commercial Proceedings, Division of the Office of the Government Agent before the European Court of Human Rights, KYIV
UNITED KINGDOM/ROYAUME‑UNI
Deirdre BOYLAN, Policy Officer, European and International Policy Division, Department for Constitutional Affairs, LONDON
John STACEY, Head of Civil & Family Procedure Branch, HM Courts Service,
LONDON
Daniel WEBB, Policy manager, Civil & Family Procedure Branch, HM Courts Service, LONDON
Philippa MACE, Trainee
***
OBSERVER STATES / ETATS OBSERVATEURS
HOLY SEE/SAINT-SIEGE
Odile GANGHOFER, Docteur en droit, Mission permanente du Saint-Siège, STRASBOURG
CANADA
JAPAN/JAPON
Kei KURAYOSHI, Director-General of the Judicial System Department, Ministry of Justice, TOKYO
Kotatsu UCHIBORI, Attorney, Judicial System Department, Ministry of Justice, TOKYO
The Honorable Junichi KANEKO, Judge of Tokyo District Court, TOKYO
The Honorable Kazunobu YAMAZAKI, Judge of Tokyo Family Court, TOKYO
Yasushi FUKE, Consul (Attorney), Consulate-General of Japan, STRASBOURG, Tel:+33-3-88.52.85.05 E-mail: [email protected]
MEXICO/MEXIQUE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/ETATS UNIS D’AMERIQUE
***
OBSERVERS / OBSERVATEURS
COUNCIL OF THE BARS AND LAW SOCIETIES OF EUROPE /CONSEIL DES BARREAUX D'EUROPE (CCBE)
Birgitt SWATSCHEK, Conseiller juridique, BRUXELLES
Jana WURSTOVA, Head, International Department, Czech Bar Association, PRAGUE
EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION OF JUDGES/Association européenne des MAGISTRATS (EAJ)
Maja TRATNIK, President of the European Association of Judges (EAJ), Supreme Court of Slovenia, LJUBLJANA, SLOVENIA
EUROPEAN UNION OF RECHTSPFLEGER AND COURT CLERKS/UNION EUROPEENNE DES GREFFIERS DE JUSTICE (EUR)
Gabriele GUARDA, Président de l’EUR, Greffier en Chef du Tribunal de première instance de Padou, PADOU, ITALIE
Jean-Jacques KUSTER, Représentant de l’EUR auprès du Conseil de l’Europe, Tribunal d’Instance, STRASBOURG, FRANCE
Anna MANDARINO, Greffier en chef, Tribunal de Belluno, BELLUNO, ITALIE
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF BAILIFFS/UNION INTERNATIONALE DES HUISSIERS DE JUSTICE ET OFFICIERS JUDICIAIRES (UIHJ)
Leo NETTEN, 1er Vice Président, PARIS, FRANCE
EUROPEAN FEDERATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES/FEDERATION EUROPEENNE DES JUGES ADMINISTRATIFS
Theano TZOVARIDOU, Membre de la Cour administrative d’Athènes, ATHENES, GRECE
Pierre VINCENT, Président de la Fédération européenne des juges administratifs,
Conseiller à la Cour Administrative d’Appel, NANCY, France
Heinrich ZENS, Membre de la Cour administrative d’Autriche, VIENNE, AUTRICHE
MAGISTRATS EUROPEENS POUR LES DEMOCRATIES ET LES LIBERTES (MEDEL)
Miguel CARMONA RUANO, Président de MEDEL, Audience Provinciale de Seville, SEVILLE, ESPAGNE
THE HAGUE CONFERENCE OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW/CONFERENCE DE LA HAYE DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE : Excusée / Apologised
WORLD BANK /BANQUE MONDIALE : Excusée / Apologised
***
EUROPEAN COMMISSION / COMMISSION EUROPEENNE
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION/CONSEIL DE L’UNION EUROPEENNE
***
PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE/ASSEMBLEE PARLEMENTAIRE DU CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE Excusée / Apologised
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS / COUR EUROPENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME
Luzius WILDHABER, Président de la Cour Européenne des Droits de l’Homme
Paola TONARELLI-LACORE, Greffe de la Cour Européenne des Droits de l’Homme
EUROPEAN COMMITTEE ON LEGAL CO-OPERATION/COMITE EUROPEEN DE COOPERATION JURIDIQUE (CDCJ)
Inge Lorange BACKER, Director General of the Legislation Department, Ministry of Justice, OSLO, NORWAY
CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN JUGES/CONSEIL CONSULTATIF DE JUGES EUROPEENS (CCJE)
Gerhard REISSNER, Vice-President of the Austrian Association of Judges, President of the District Court of Floridsdorf, VIENNA, AUSTRIA
STEERING COMMITTEE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS/COMITE DIRECTEUR POUR LES DOIRTS DE L’HOMME (CDDH)
Francesco Mauro IACOVIELLO, Magistrat du parquet Général près la Cour de Cassation, RAVENNE, ITALIE
***
EXPERTS OF THE CEPEJ-TF-DEL / EXPERTS DE LA CEPEJ-TF-DEL
Jon T. JOHNSEN, Professor in Law, Dean of the Faculty of law, University of Oslo, OSLO, NORWAY
***
SECRETARIAT - Fax: +33 3 88 41 37 45 - e-mail: [email protected]
Stéphane LEYENBERGER, Secretary of the CEPEJ, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs, / Secrétaire de la CEPEJ, Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques, , Tel : +33 3 88 41 28 41, e-mail: [email protected]
Muriel DECOT, Co-Secretary of the CEPEJ, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs, / Co-Secrétaire de la CEPEJ, Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques, Tel : +33 3 90 21 44 55, e-mail : [email protected]
José-Maria FERNANDEZ VILLALOBOS, Special Advisor, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs / Conseiller spécial, Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques, Tel : +33 3 90 21 54 71, e-mail : [email protected]
Jean-Pierre GEILLER, Principal administrative assistant, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs / Assistant administratif principal, Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques, Tel : +33 3 88 41 22 27, e-mail : [email protected]
Elisabeth HEURTEBISE, Administrative Assistant, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs / Assistante administrative, Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques, Tel. +33 3 88 41 35 54, Fax : +33 3 88 41 37 45, e-mail: [email protected]
Marie MORGAN-WELS, Administrative Assistant, Directorate General I - Legal Affairs / Assistante administrative, Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques, Tel. +33 3 90 21 5059, e-mail: [email protected]
APPENDIX III
Presentation by Mr. KURAYOSHI
Director-General of the Judicial System Department
Ministry of Justice, Japan
European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice, Dec. 7 – 9, 2005
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to present the current activities of the Government of Japan with regard to the efficiency of justice and overall justice system reform in Japan.
I am very pleased to be talking about Japan’s reforms today, since this is a particularly timely topic, and received special coverage in an October issue of the Economist. The title of this issue is, “The Sun Also Rises” and focuses on Japan’s economic revival. Mention is also made of the judicial reforms, which have been described as “sweeping”, and today I would like to describe those reforms in further detail.
(1i) Currently, structural reforms in various fields are transforming Japan from a society based on “advance control and regulation” into a society oriented toward “post review and remedy”, in which individuals will be given free rein to act on their own responsibility and in which violation of the rules will be reviewed or remedied after such violations.
With these changes in society, the role of the justice system in Japan is becoming ever more important. Therefore, justice system reform has been implemented with the aim of realizing a “fast, friendly and reliable justice system” to support Japanese society in the 21st century.
Many of the implemented reforms have seen great success, and among the reforms there have been a great number of measures, which aim at increasing efficiency or contribute to it.
(ii) Next, from the aspect of the efficiency of justice, I would like to talk about some of the points of reform of the justice system and related matters, which have been implemented thus far.
(2i) First, I would like to focus on expediting court procedure.
Judging from the statistics, court proceedings in Japan have become faster as a whole, but some cases tend to take a considerably long period of time. For example, for civil cases where special knowledge or expert opinions are required and for complicated criminal cases of serious public concern, the duration of the proceedings can be quite lengthy.
At the same time, it is necessary not only to pursue speed but also to ensure that the proceedings are just and thorough. Accordingly, a large number of measures have been implemented from such viewpoints, and today I would like to refer to four of the main measures.
(ii) The first one is enactment of the Law for Expediting Court Procedure in 2003.
The law says that the court of first instance should conduct the proceedings with the aim of concluding the trial as fast as possible within a period of two years and also wants the Supreme Court of Japan to study measures on expediting court procedure through research on the duration of court proceedings, the causes of lengthy proceedings and other matters, and to publish the report for the public every two years.
In accordance with this law, the Supreme Court established a special committee under the Secretariat of the Supreme Court in 2003, and announced the first report entitled “Report on the Review of Expediting Court Procedure,” in July of this year.
(iii) The second point is reform of the civil justice system.
In order to reinforce the handling of complicated cases or cases that require specialized knowledge, many measures have been carried out such as the promotion of planned proceedings, a new evidence-collection method before filing a complaint, and establishment of an expert commissioner system for cases requiring specialized knowledge.
The reform worthy of special mention is reinforcement of comprehensive responses to cases related to intellectual property rights. First, the Intellectual Property High Court was established for the purpose of reinforcing and expediting hearings of cases. At the same time, litigation proceedings have been made easier to utilize by such methods as reinforcing the protection of trade secrets in the proceedings and facilitating proof of infringement in hearings of intellectual property infringement cases.
Given the specialized nature of cases involving intellectual property rights, the Intellectual Property High Court which specializes in handling a wide range of IP cases and deploys judges knowledgeable in handling such cases, most certainly contributes to the realization of more effective and speedy trial proceedings and is significant for the efficiency of justice.
The IP High Court commenced operations in April of this year and has rendered several judgments on cases which received much attention in the media and industry, and has thus far established a good reputation for its prompt and proper management of cases.
(iv) The third point is reform of criminal procedure.
In Japan, a system whereby the general public can participate in criminal trials as lay judges, known as the saiban-in system is scheduled to be implemented in criminal trials by 2009.
The system will most certainly change the way that criminal trial proceedings are conducted and, taking into account the potential burden on the general public, it is essential to facilitate even faster trials.
Considering these factors, the following systems have been introduced for reinforcement and speeding up of criminal trials:
One, in order to sort out the contested issues and evidence before the trial, new pre-trial arrangement proceedings have been established and the disclosure of evidence has been expanded;
Two, the principle of holding court sessions over consecutive days has been established by law;
Three, a system to secure effective trial management by the court has been introduced;
And finally four, with regard to simple and clear non-contested cases, a summary proceeding system for simpler and faster trials has been established.
(3i) Other than those of court proceedings, we have a number of justice system reform achievements. Among them, I would like to introduce four.
(ii) The first one is alternative dispute resolution. Establishment of various means to resolve disputes other than litigation has great significance in preventing disputes from becoming even more serious and in reducing the burden and cost to be borne by the judiciary as well as by the general public. Therefore, the Arbitration Law along the lines of international standards was enacted in 2003. Further, the Law for Promotion of Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution was enacted in 2004 in order to encourage use of ADR.
(iii) The second point is the adoption of the comprehensive legal support system. It is designed to provide information and services necessary for settling both civil and criminal legal disputes anywhere in the country. This system will play an important role in expanding access to the judiciary and to ADR and people will be able to choose the most appropriate measure to resolve their disputes. In the long term, this will contribute to the efficiency of justice since disputes will be resolved without undue delay and the burden on the people involved will be reduced.
(iv) The third point is development and promotion of law-related education.
Law-related materials have been developed for third-year students of junior high schools in order to promote law-related education.
Law-related education will teach skills in preventing and resolving disputes and will cultivate a willingness to participate in the judicial process, which will play a future role in influencing the efficiency of justice.
(v) The fourth and final point is that of expansion of the legal population, which is also related to enhancing the efficiency of justice. For instance, people, who have lawyers close at hand providing advice and assistance, will be able to prevent legal disputes from escalating into larger conflicts.
Also, it has been said that the number of Japanese legal professionals is too small. To expand the legal population the government plans to increase the number of successful candidates passing the bar exam and aims to increase the number of legal professionals to about 50,000 before the end of 2018.
(4) In conclusion, by promoting the efficiency of justice in order that justice can fulfil its intended role, we will be able to ensure that fast and appropriate resolutions with which the interested parties are satisfied are guaranteed. And thereby make sure that the fruits of reform of the judicial system lead to the sun shining on Japan.
Thank you very much for your attention.
APPENDIX IV
Study session of the CEPEJ:
"The evaluation of the quality of justice and the independence of judges: how far can we go?"
Quality Project in the Courts in the Jurisdiction of
the Court of Appeal of Rovaniemi, Finland
Presentation by Mr Kari KIESILÄINEN
Ministry of Justice
Department of Judicial administration
Finland
It is not often that one gets to address an audience as distinguished as this. It is thus with great pleasure that I speak to you today.
I hope that I will be able to offer you some insights about the quality work done within the Finnish judiciary today.
Indeed, I am sure that the experiences we have gained in the development of the quality will come in use for all of you, too.
It is a pity that the representatives of Rovaniemi courts could not attend this session, but their assignments didn´t simply allow it. I myself represent the Ministry of Justice in Finland although my background is a one of a trial court judge.
But let me start by telling you few words about the Ministry of Justice in Finland.
The Ministry of Justice in Finland is a relatively small body consisting of 350 persons. By comparison, I would like to mention that the population of Finland is circa 5,2 million.
Despite the relatively low number of employees, the staff of the MoJ, however, serve a total of 9,650 persons who are employed in the administrative sector of the Ministry of Justice. They work in the courts of law, enforcement agencies, prisons and legal aid offices.
As regards the duties of the MoJ, the Ministry is, among other things, responsible for drawing up guidelines for legal policy.
The mission of the MoJ is to work for an active and safe society where people may rely on that their rights are respected.
In that respect, the quality of the judicial system is a core element.
The responsibility for the central administration of the courts rests with theMinistry of Justice. The main duty of the MoJ is, accordingly, to ensure that the preconditions for a functioning judicial system exist in Finland.
The MoJ in Finland has been given the authority to take initiative in various areas of judicial administration, such as
- preparation of the budget for the courts,
- reorganisation of the court system and
- training of judges.
In this regard, we have issued new procedural legislation in almost all areas of court work. Moreover, we have streamlined the court network and adopted a new system for appointments into the judiciary etc.
But, I have to admit that to successfully carry out so many reforms over such a short period of time has not been an easy task.
The Ministry of Justice Supports the Work of the Judiciary
In Finland, the judicial powers are exercised by independent courts of law. The courts of law in Finland employ a total of 3.500 persons out of whom 900 are judges.
The courts are already to some extent directly involved in the field of judicial administration as well. This is the case especially with the recruitment of judges.
Further, the courts have initiated development of the quality of judicial work. In this respect, the division of labour is clear here: The courts of law run these programmes independently, and the role of the MoJ is to support them financially.
Many courts of law have, accordingly, launched extensive quality development programmes, which clearly show that courts may, and actually do, have a great impact on the enhancement of the rights of individuals.
The Quality Project of Rovaniemi Court of Appeal
The first Quality Project in Finland was launched in 1999 in Lapland by the Rovaniemi Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal itself, as well as all courts in its jurisdiction, that is nine District Courts, participate in the project, as do the stakeholder groups consisting of advocates, public legal aid attorneys and prosecutors.
The Quality Project covers both civil matters and criminal matters. This project won the Crystal Scales of Justice award 2005.
The objective of the Quality Project is to develop the functioning of the courts so that the proceedings meet the strictest criteria of fairness, the decisions are well reasoned and justified, and the services provided by the court are affordable to the individual customers.
The core idea of the Quality Project is simply to influence the main factor in the quality of adjudication, that is, the professional skill and competence of the judge.
This will mainly be done by means of systematic discussions among the judges and between the judges and the stakeholders, aiming for improvements in the quality of adjudication.
The discussions in the quality work have covered, for example,
- the conduct of the judge in the hearing as an element of procedural justice and
- the preparation of a civil case by the parties themselves.
The Quality Project is supplemented by training, offered for 6–8 days per year. In addition to the quality themes of the year, the training has covered a selected field of substantive law, for example contract or tort.
The organisation of the Quality Project
The development work is steered by the Development Committee of the Quality Project.
The Committee consists of a chairman and nine members among them judges, advocates and a prosecutor. The term of the members of the Committee is three years. One of the members is a Co-ordinatior for Quality.
The Co-ordinator for Quality is chosen for one year term. The task of a Co-ordinator for Quality, is
- to support the Working Groups for Quality,
- to implement the training,
- to maintain contacts with the various constituencies, and
- to edit the Report on Quality.
As mentioned above, there also are four Working Groups for Quality, which are set up for each year. The leading principle is that every judge participates in the work of the Working Groups.
[the Quality Conference]
The selection of development themes is finalised during the Quality Conference that takes place every autumn. This conference is attended by all judges. Representatives of stakeholder groups may also participate.
When the themes are being selected and the objectives set, due care is taken not to compromise the independence of the courts or the judiciary.
Normally, each Working Group for Quality is tasked to deal with one of the development themes.
The Working Groups, accordingly,
- map out the problems relevant to the theme,
- look into the practices adopted in the different District Courts,
- define a procedure that can be mutually accepted and
- make a proposal for the harmonisation of the court practices.
Measures to follow-up the various themes are designed already when the objectives are being set.
The reports of the Working Groups are presented and discussed at the Quality Conference.
Based on the reports, new themes and goals for the following year are also being set by the Quality Conference.
The Report on Quality, containing the reports of the Working Groups in their final form, is distributed every year to the participants of the Quality Project, to all courts in Finland, and to various stakeholder groups.
It is also published on the judicial intranet and on the Internet (www.oikeus.fi/27723.htm. English summaries are included).
The effects of the scheme on the workings of the court
The judges serving in the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal of Rovaniemi, have been involved in the quality development to a great extent. In the past few years, also the prosecutors and the advocates have participated in the Quality Project extensively.
One finding or conclusion of the quality work is that the co-operation among the courts in the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal has increased. Also the interaction between the judges has become more intense.
The increase in communication and debate has helped to
reach greater uniformity of judicial practice.
Moreover, the discussions and the training have brought about skill improvements. This, in its turn, has resulted in improvements in the quality of judicial procedure and judgments, too.
I would say that we at the MoJ have witnessed a shift in attitudes towards change, they have shifted in a positive direction.
In practical terms, this means that the problems and the weaknesses are being investigated, and that improvements are being proposed and implemented.
The follow-up reports indicate that there have indeed been increases in consistency. Moreover, there are also certain indications that the quality work has reduced the parties’ willingness to appeal.
Thanks to the Quality Project, the participants have also realised that successful administration of justice requires co-operation among all actors. The judges, the advocates and the prosecutors have begun to respect one another’s work to a greater extent than may have been the case before.
The Quality Project in the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal of Rovaniemi has served also as a model for the later quality projects launched in other Court of Appeal jurisdictions in Finland.
The Quality Benchmarks
One of the most significant achievements of the Quality Project has been the preparation of the Quality Benchmarks of adjudication.
The Quality Benchmarks are undoubtedly an unprecedented event in the history of judicial development in Finland. The Benchmarks will later be available also in English.
The preparation of the Benchmarks began in 2003, as a part of the Quality Project.
The proposal for the Quality Benchmarks consists of an explanatory memorandum and a set of benchmarks for the measurement of quality in adjudication, presented in table form.
The primary purpose of the Benchmarks, and of the evaluation carried out with them, is to serve as a tool for the continuous improvement of the activities of the courts.
The Benchmarks will, accordingly, form a basis for the quality work of future years, as well as for the monitoring of developments in quality.
An additional use for the Benchmarks is opening the concept of adjudication and the debate relating to adjudication also to a greater public.
The benchmarking results may, in some cases, also serve as an “alarm”, if there is something clearly amiss in the workings of a particular court.
And finally, the benchmarking results provide the management of the court with data for use in support of resource requirements in the annual performance negotiations with the Ministry of Justice.
However, the Benchmarks have not been designed for use as a means of supervision or control of the judges.
On the contrary, the Benchmarks have been designed with the premise that the quality of adjudication is measured primarily from the point of view of the parties in judicial proceedings. However, this external viewpoint of the Quality Benchmarks is supplemented by a number of internal view points.
The internal criteria relate to the workings of the court from the point of view of its own staff and of practical arrangements.
The preparation of the Quality Benchmarks began with the identification of those aspects of adjudication — fields of assessment — whose quality was to be measured. Next, a number of quality criteria were established for each field of assessment. And finally, the quality criteria were clarified by way of examples.
Quality criteria
The proposed Quality Benchmarks consist of six fields of assessment, which comprise a total of 40 quality criteria. The fields of assessment are as follows: (1) procedure (9 criteria); (2) judgement (7 criteria); (3) treatment of the parties and the other participants in the proceedings (6 criteria); (4) promptness of the proceedings (4 criteria); (5) professional skill and competence of the judge (6 criteria) and finally, (6) organisation and management of adjudication (8 criteria).
Besides the quality criteria — that what is measured — the Quality Benchmarks contain another essential element, that is, the points to be awarded in the assessment.
In addition, there are five categories of assessment methods to be used in the context of the Quality Benchmarks. The assessment methods are as follows: (1) self-assessment; (2) surveys; (3) expert assessment; (4) statistical analysis and (5) statement by the court itself.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
this is all I had planned to say today about the MoJ and the quality work done within the Finnish judiciary – I hope that you will find the information useful. If you have any questions about my address, I will be happy to answer them.
Thank you for your attention!