Strasbourg, 20 January 2007
CEPEJ(2006)21
European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice
(CEPEJ)
8th plenary meeting
Strasbourg, 6 - 8 December 2006
meeting REport
|
MAIN DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE CEPEJ The CEPEJ: warmly thanked Mr Guy CANIVET, First President of the French Court of Cassation, for an exchange of views on the detection and training of heads of large courts and welcomed the support given by Mr CANIVET to the work of the CEPEJ in general, and to its process for evaluating judicial systems in particular; took note of the information given by the representatives of the member states on recent domestic developments in the judicial field and invited them to forward to the Secretariat written information and useful references which could be included into the area "country profiles" of its web site, as well as a chart of their judicial system which could also be presented on the web site; entrusted its Bureau to look for a procedure enabling to present quickly the relevant recent developments in the field of justice; noted with great satisfaction the excellent welcome reserved by the Committee of Ministers to the Report "European judicial systems – Edition 2006" as well as the large echoes given to this Report in several member states; thanked the First President of the French Court of Cassation for his initiative to introduce the Report to the judicial community in a specific event organised at the Court of Cassation and invited the members of the CEPEJ as well as other relevant authorities in the member states to organise similar events to present the Report and the methodology used by the CEPEJ; invited its members to ensure the proper dissemination of the Report to the relevant authorities and legal professions in their countries, if appropriate, with the support of the Secretariat, and to forward to the Secretariat national press articles dealing with the Report, as well as information on the use of the Report by the authorities in their countries; decided to analyse in depth the Report according to the recommendations of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL (2006) 8), including in launching calls for projects to external researchers who might benefit from a CEPEJ label on the basis of a specific protocol for research; it instructed the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL to manage this process, under the authority of the Bureau; welcomed the decision of the CCJE and the Lisbon Network to analyse the specific information of the Report regarding respectively the status of judges and the training of judges and prosecutors and invited the CCPE to study in particular the relevant information regarding the status of prosecutors; noted the specific interest of the European Union for the evaluation of the domestic judicial systems by the CEPEJ, in particular to evaluate the implementation of the EU instruments in the judicial field; decided to start the next evaluation process in 2007 on the basis of data of 2006; entrusted its Bureau to consider, for the future, other possible options for a two year evaluation round in order to take into account the legitimate interest of the member states, in particular the federal states, taking into account written contributions to be forwarded by the member states to the Secretariat before 1 February 2007; adopted the report "Length of court proceedings based on the case-law of the ECHR" (CEPEJ (2006) 15) and the report on "Reducing judicial time in the countries of Northern Europe" (CEPEJ (2006) 14) and decided to publish them within its series "CEPEJ Studies"; adopted the Compendium: "Best practices on time management in judicial proceedings ” (CEPEJ (2006) 13) as a first map of concrete measures to deal with the length of judicial proceedings, to be regularly verified and updated with further good practices and innovative ideas provided to the CEPEJ by European courts or other relevant bodies, in particular the Observers to the CEPEJ; invited the member states, where appropriate, to translate these three documents and to ensure their widest dissemination to the policy makers and the legal practitioners, and to make use of them in particular in the framework of the training of judges, lawyers and other legal professions; decided to set up within the CEPEJ a Centre of study and analysis of judicial time management (SATURN Centre) aimed at collecting specific information necessary to the precise knowledge of judicial timeframes in the member states, as foreseen in the programme of activities for 2007; invited its members to disseminate the "Checklist of indicators for the analysis of lengths of proceedings in the justice system" to policy makers and legal practitioners, where appropriate, with the support of the Secretariat; reiterated its determination to develop its activities in relying on the experience of the Network of Pilot courts, so as to ensure their relevance vis-à-vis the expectations of the practitioners and approve the working programme with the Network (CEPEJ (2006) 12); decided to prolong the terms of reference of the CEPEJ-GT-MED for one meeting, in its current composition, including an expert in criminal law to be appointed by the Bureau, and instructed the Working group to finalise the report assessing the impact of the recommendations of the Council of Europe in the field of mediation and the guidelines which would be submitted to the 9th plenary meeting of the CEPEJ for adoption; adopted its programme of activities for 2007 (CEPEJ (2006) 9); invited the member states, through the members of the CEPEJ, to propose to the Secretariat relevant experts with a view to setting up the working groups on evaluation (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL) and quality (CEPEJ-GT-QUAL), as well as the Groupe de pilotage of the SATURN Centre foreseen in the programme of activities for 2007 and entrusted its Bureau to appoint the members of these working groups taking into account these proposals; welcomed the conclusions of the Round table on "Non-enforcement of court decisions against the state and its entities in the Russian Federation" (Strasbourg, 30 – 31 October) and agreed to pursue in 2007 the cooperation with the Russian Federation to support the concrete implementation of these conclusions; supported the international conference organised by the Ministry of Justice of Lithuania on: “Mediation in Europe: present challenges and future developments” which is expected to take place on 24-25 May 2007 in Vilnius; agreed to cooperate with the Romanian authorities in the framework of their reflection on extraordinary reviews and preliminary questions within the domestic judicial system; agreed, upon the request of the Georgian delegation, that all the members of the CEPEJ, and, where appropriate, the Observers, could be consulted by the delegation of the country concerned, through the Secretariat, on specific issues interesting judicial reforms in its country; invited the member states which would like to benefit from the cooperation of the CEPEJ to forward their proposals to the Secretariat as soon as possible, so that they can be considered by the Bureau within the framework of the implementation of the programme of activities for 2007, subject to budgetary availabilities; invited its members to forward to the Secretariat all the information on the celebration of the 4th European Day of Justice in October 2006 and supported the German proposal to organise in 2007 the main event of this Day in Aachen, in cooperation with the Belgian and Dutch authorities; it noted that the next competition for the Crystal Scales of Justice might be organised in 2008; elected for a two year period: President: Mr Fausto de SANTIS (Italy) Vice-President: Mr John STACEY (United Kingdom) Member of the Bureau: Ms Elsa GARCIA MALTRAS de BLAS (Spain) Member of the Bureau: Mr Margus SARAPUU (Estonia) decided unanimously to grant the Observer status with the CEPEJ to: the European Network of Judicial Councils (ENJC), the American Bar Association – Central European and Eurasian Law Initiative (ABA-CEELI) welcomed the substantial achievements by the Secretariat to design and manage the new CEPEJ Web site and enhance the communication of the CEPEJ; it reiterated its wish, having its own Statute, that a more direct access to the CEPEJ web site be organised from the portal of the Council of Europe; expressed it deepest thanks to Mr Eberhard DESCH for his four years as President of the CEPEJ and for his determining action to develop the Commission and endow it a preeminent role within the Council of Europe, as well as to its Vice-President, Mr André POTOCKI and to the members of the Bureau, Mr Alan UZELAC and Mr Ciaran KELLY, for their commitment and their active role which had largely contributed to the success of the activities of the CEPEJ. |
The European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) held its 8th plenary meeting in Strasbourg on 6 - 8 December 2007. The meeting was chaired by Mr Eberhard DESCH (Germany), President of the CEPEJ.
The agenda and the list of participants are set out in Appendices I and II respectively.
1. Opening of the meeting
The meeting was opended by Mr Guy DE VEL, Director General of Legal Affairs. His speech appears in Appendix III to this Report.
On behalf of the CEPEJ, President DESCH warmly thanked Mr DE VEL, before his retirement, for the continuous support given to the work of the Commission.
2. Information from the President of the CEPEJ and the Secretariat
The CEPEJ took note of the information given by its President who participated in the annual meeting of the European Union of Rechtspfleger (UER) in Wels (Austria) on 7 and 8 September.
It was also informed by its members in respect of Austria and Estonia on the seminar on justice administration organised by the Council of Europe in Ankara (Turkey) on 25 and 26 September, where they represented the Commission.
The CEPEJ member in respect of Croatia indicated that he participed in the Colloquy for the celebration of the 200th anniversary of the Belgian Code of civil procedure in Gent.
Finally, the CEPEJ took note of the information by the Secretariat, who represented the CEPEJ in:
the seminar on Judicial Independence, Ethics and Accountability – International Standards, Good practices and their domestic application organised by UNODC and the OSCE at the State Duma, Moscow (Russian Federation) on 19 - 20 October,
the Council of Europe Octopus conference on "Corruption and Democracy" in Strasbourg on 20 - 21 November,
the MTEC training course organised by the Dutch ministry of Economic Affairs in cooperation with the Dutch ministry of Justice on "Developments within the field of administration of Justice in Europe" in The Hague (the Netherlands) on 22 - 23 November,
the seminar on bailiffs organised in Baku (Azerbaijan) within the framework f the TACIS programme of the European Commission implemented by the International Union of Judicial Officers (UIHJ),
the Journées européennes du droit organised by the Prosecutor General at the Court of Appeal of Nancy (France) on 30 November,
3. Exchange of views with Mr Guy CANIVET, First President of the French Court of Cassation
On behalf of the CEPEJ, Mr DESCH welcomed Mr Guy CANIVET, First President of the French Court of Cassation. He pointed out that this exchange of views, which followed on from the meeting between the CEPEJ and the President of the European Court of Human Rights last year, formed part of the ongoing dialogue between the CEPEJ and legal practitioners, who were the main beneficiaries of its work. Mr CANIVET was a committed European, who chaired the Association of Presidents of the Supreme Courts of the Member States of the European Union and, in October 2006, had hosted the 8th Conference of Presidents of the Supreme Courts of the Council of Europe at the French Court of Cassation.
Mr CANIVET stressed the quality and value of the CEPEJ’s report on European judicial systems, which encouraged systems to develop positively and helped to enhance mutual understanding between them. On 13 December 2006, he would be holding a seminar at the French Court of Cassation to present this report to the French judicial community.
Mr DESCH warmly thanked Mr CANIVET for his appreciation of and support to the work of the CEPEJ work and asked the CEPEJ members and the relevant authorities in the member states to organise similar events to raise awareness of the report and the methods used.
Mr DESCH said that, as part of the cooperation activities of the CEPEJ, Mr CANIVET had submitted a request to the CEPEJ Bureau for cooperation on an exchange of experience on the organisation of the selection and training of the future heads (judges and prosecutors) of major courts. The Bureau had appointed Mr Johannes RIEDEL (President of the Court of Appeal of Köln, Germany) and Mr Carlos de SOUSA MENDES (Secretary General of the Office of the Prosecutor General, Portugal) for this purpose and they had worked with the experts of the Court of Cassation in Paris on 24 November 2006.
Mr CANIVET said that his request to the CEPEJ was prompted by the task assigned to him as First President of the Court of Cassation by the French Minister of Justice, Mr Pascal CLEMENT, which was to propose a mechanism for improving the selection of court presidents and preparing them better for their functions, particularly with regard to management, and for enabling the judicial system to be more open to civil society. This raised three sets of key questions:
What was a judge or prosecutor with potential? How did one detect that potential (internally, or through an expert assessment by someone outside the judiciary)? How open should the procedure be?
What should the training include in order to cover the management aspect? Where should it take place (should a special institution be set up? should links be established with the grandes écoles and the business community?) What should the pace of training be? What openings should there be to other legal systems?
What measures should be taken to reach out to civil society?(Enabling the judiciary to understand what society expected of it and raising public awareness of the workings of the judicial system; training judges and prosecutors in communication skills).
The CEPEJ members in respect of Hungary and Sweden described their countries’ experiences. The main points of their statements are set out in Appendix IV to this report.
The member in respect of Italy said that the separation of judicial and administrative functions in the higher echelons of the courts was currently the subject of much debate in Italy.
The representative of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE), supported by the Latvian member of the CEPEJ, drew attention to CCJE Opinions No. 1 on standards concerning the independence of the judiciary and the irremovability of judges, No. 4 on appropriate initial and in-service training for judges at national and European levels and No. 7 on justice and society, which set out the positions of the CCJE and contained recommendations relevant to the questions raised by Mr CANIVET.
The CEPEJ member in respect of Estonia said that special leadership training was offered to all presidents and administrative directors of courts in Estonia.
The CEPEJ member in respect of Cyprus said that all judges in Cyprus attended an annual training course. The Judicial Service Commission, which was made up of members of the Supreme Court, selected future judges from among lawyers possessing a certain degree of experience.
The CEPEJ member in respect of the United Kingdom said that candidates had to show special abilities in order to be appointed as head of a UK court from a list of experienced lawyers recommended by the selection centre. Training support for these judges was provided by the Judicial Training Board.
The member in respect of Switzerland said that regular opinion polls were held in certain Swiss courts, in which questions were put to judges, prosecutors, lawyers, solicitors, litigants and the general public in order to assess user satisfaction. Schemes were also run with schools to raise awareness of judicial issues among young people.
The member in respect of Germany said that future presidents of courts were pre-selected at Länder level from among young judges, who were then steered towards special training courses and work experience in the area of management while continuing with their regular judicial duties. The German Judicial Academy in Trier provided training for judges, which was supplemented by special training at Länder level.
The member in respect of the Russian Federation talked of the difficulty of training nearly 24 000 judges in such a vast country. The Judicial Academy of the Supreme Court was responsible for training. Consideration was currently being given to the possibility of reinstating the system under which presidents of courts had been elected by their peers.
The representative of the Consultative Council of European Prosecutors (CCPE) noted that the heads of public prosecutor’s offices were responsible for criminal policy-making as well as for administrative matters and this had to be taken into account when selecting and training principal prosecutors.
The member in respect of France stressed that the question under discussion raised the more general issue of career streaming, noting that the wisdom of investing in specific training for presidents of courts was all the greater if the persons concerned were likely to remain presidents of courts. In turn, this raised the issues of career development, access for persons who had not attended specific training courses to the post of court president and appraisal of presidents of courts.
The Secretary General of the European Judicial Training Network (EJTN) said that the Network was willing to contribute to discussion on this subject.
Finally Mr CANIVET pointed out that until now the French system had applied the principle that the independence of the judiciary implied that court presidents were required to have management skills – an approach which contrasted with that of the Court of Justice of the European Communities for example, where judicial and administrative functions were strictly separated. At all events, the concept of “judicial management” required further development.
4. Study session: presentation of the project awarded the Crystal Scales of Justice in 2006
The project had been awarded the Crystal Scales of Justice, which had been presented at the Court of Cassation in Paris on 26 October.
The CEPEJ congratulated the Linz Regional Court on its project and agreed to promote it as a good practice vis-à-vis users of judicial systems. It also praised the other projects awarded prizes on this occasion, namely:
an electronic auctioning system set up by the High Court of the Region of Murcia (Tribunal Superior de Justicia) in Spain;
the “COURTPUB” database established by the Austrian Ministry of Justice.
5. Recent developments in the judicial field in the Council of Europe member states
The CEPEJ asked its Bureau to suggest a procedure whereby this type of exchange could be repeated regularly without having to devote too much time to it at its plenary meetings.
6. Report on "European judicial systèms– Edition 2006"
Publication, dissemination and impact of the report
The rapporteur, Mr Fausto de SANTIS (Italy), informed the CEPEJ that Mr DESCH had presented the Report on "European judicial systems" to the Ministers' Deputies at their 974th meeting. The Deputies had unanimously "welcomed" the report, emphasised the quality of the work, backed the methodology used and recognised its great usefulness for judicial reforms in the member States. They had stressed that it represented a fundamental contribution from the CEPEJ to the key aims of the Council of Europe concerning the rule of law. They had supported the idea that the report was only the initial phase of a process, to be followed by in-depth analysis of the results with a view to interpreting them and drawing useful conclusions for public justice policies in the member States. Some of the Ambassadors had also stressed that it would be useful to repeat the exercise on a regular basis so that the results could be refined and the trends in judicial systems measured.
Mr de SANTIS informed the CEPEJ that the report had been published and disseminated, particularly through the press conference given by Mr Eberhard DESCH, Mr Jean-Paul JEAN and Mr Guy DE VEL in Strasbourg on 5 October. The conference had been preceded by several informal meetings with journalists from different member States.
The report had been published on the CEPEJ internet site, with a presentation document and the full individual replies from the States. One thousand copies had been printed in each official language and already been distributed to certain bodies in the member states (Ministries of Justice, Supreme Courts, Judicial Schools), as well as the relevant Council of Europe bodies and the European and international organisations concerned. At the rapporteur’s invitation, the CEPEJ encouraged its members to disseminate the report widely among the relevant authorities and legal professions in their own countries and where necessary to call on the support of the Secretariat, which could provide them with copies of the report and the presentation document.
Several delegations supported the rapporteur's recommendation stressing the need for the report to be translated so that the best possible use could be made of it within the authorities and among the legal professionals of the member states. In this connection, the CEPEJ welcomed the move by Romania, which had already translated the report into Romanian and distributed it to all judges. It also noted that a translation into Russian was being prepared.
It was stressed that, in addition to the positive reception by the Committee of Ministers, there was evidence of considerable interest in the report among the relevant authorities and judicial bodies in the member states, and in the media. The Secretariat informed the CEPEJ of a number of initiatives to present and discuss the report in various countries, including Azerbaijan (Bailiffs and International Union of Judicial Officers), France (Court of Cassation[1] and European Law Days in Nancy), Luxembourg (Ministry of the Economy) and Jordan (Seminar of the American Bar Association). The CEPEJ asked its members and the relevant authorities in the member states to hold special events to raise awareness about the report and the methods used. The member in respect of Italy said that a special seminar on the subject would be held in Rome in the first half of 2007. The member in respect of Croatia said that the next conference of the International Institute of Procedural Law (Dubrovnik, May 2007) would provide an opportunity to present the report in Croatia; it was agreed that this conference would be supported by the CEPEJ.
The Secretariat pointed out that several major European media had covered the publication of the report and that this showed how important this work was for the debate on justice in Europe and even elsewhere in the world (articles in the Mexican press). A press review had been prepared and the Secretariat asked the participants to help it complete this by sending it any national press articles dealing with the report.
The Secretariat also noted that the number of connections to the CEPEJ Internet site had increased from about 4 000 in September 2006 to 20 000 in October 2006 (after the publication of the report), clearly showing the interest in this process of assessing judicial systems.
The member in respect of Austria said that his authorities regularly referred to the report for information on other judicial systems. However, it was not an easy tool for the press to use as interpretation of the results presented called for considerable caution and in-depth analysis.
It was noted that several national bodies had already indicated that they had referred to the report, for example the National Commission for the Efficiency of Justice set up by the Italian Ministry of Justice, the independent commission for the efficiency of justice in the Netherlands, judges’ trade unions in France and the services preparing legislation on the judicial treatment of victims at the instigation of the Prokuratura in the Russian Federation.
Detailed analysis of the report
Pointing out that the report was merely an initial stage in the evaluation process (the stage of knowledge), Mr de SANTIS reminded members of the working arrangements proposed by CEPEJ-GT-EVAL for carrying out detailed analysis of the data provided in the report on certain subjects. These arrangements are described in document CEPEJ-GT-EVAL (2006) 8, paragraphs 11 et seq.
The CEPEJ decided to continue the detailed analysis of the report in line with these recommendations, including by issuing invitations for bids from outside researchers for projects which could be run under CEPEJ auspices on the basis of a special research protocol. It entrusted the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL with the task of managing this process under the authority of the Bureau.
The representative of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) emphasised that, following a proposal by the Chair of the CEPEJ at the 7th plenary meeting of the CCJE, it had been decided that the CCJE would analyse the information in the report relating specifically to the status of judges. The Secretariat said that the Lisbon Network would analyse the information on the training of judges. Lastly, the CEPEJ invited the Consultative Council of European Prosecutors to examine the data on the status of prosecutors.
The Secretariat also pointed out that, in connection with its monitoring of the execution of judicial decisions at national level, the Committee of Ministers had showed particular interest in the chapter in the report covering this subject and had decided to resume its discussions at a later stage in the light of the results of the specific study being conducted by the CEPEJ on the execution of judicial decisions, which were expected by the end of 2007.
Continuation of the judicial system evaluation process
The rapporteur, Ms Elsa GARCIA MALTRAS de BLAS (Spain), informed the CEPEJ of the recommendations of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL concerning the continuation of the evaluation process. She said that the questionnaire would have to be adapted, but not rewritten, in order to stabilise the information processed over the years. An electronic version of the questionnaire currently in preparation within the GT-EVAL should help to simplify the task of the national correspondents, the experts and the Secretariat[2]. She also explained that the GT-EVAL would be singling out a body of key issues (thirty-odd questions) on which the governments could be consulted at regular intervals.
The rapporteur underlined the recommendation of the GT-EVAL to conduct evaluation cycles every two years[3], bearing in mind the decisions and expectations of political decision makers and European and national judicial bodies, the scientific value of an exercise carried out on a regular basis, and the prospect that this regularity would simplify matters, using electronic data processing tools. Regular evaluations would help to measure changes in the different European judicial systems, to reflect rapid developments in certain countries in transition, allowing sufficient time to properly analyse and interpret the data presented in the report, to stimulate reforms of member states’ judicial systems in keeping with European norms and standards and to make the CEPEJ the reference in the evaluation of justice in Europe, providing other institutions (such as the European Union) with a basis to work on.
In the ensuing discussion:
a majority of delegations supported the principle of a series of evaluations in a frequent periodicity (every 2 years), reiterating and developing the arguments mentioned in the above paragraph,
other delegations were concerned that sufficient time should be taken to exploit the data collected and processed, and argued that it was quite likely that the information would not vary significantly in the space of two years – one expert noted in this respect that the fact that a particular feature did not vary in time could be significant information in itself,
several delegations pleaded in favour of a less frequent periodicity (generally 3 years), stressing in particular the the difficulty and the specific workload on federal states, which had to collect the data from the federal entities,
some delegations suggested alternating an interim report on a few key points with a more in-depth report.
Following the discussion the CEPEJ decided to launch the next evaluation process in 2007, based on 2006 data, with the report published in 2008. It nevertheless invited those delegations which so wished to submit to the Secretariat, by 1 February 2007, their contributions explaining their specific difficulties and instructed its Bureau to consider, for the future, possible alternatives to a two-year evaluation cycle, taking legitimate interests, such as those of federal states, into account.
7. Implementation of the Framework-Programme: "A new objective for European judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe ": work of the CEPEJ-TF-DEL
Following the introductory report presented by Mr Jacques BÜHLER (Switzerland), the CEPEJ adopted the report: "Length of court proceedings based on the case-law of the ECHR" (CEPEJ (2006) 15). It decided to publish it in the "CEPEJ Studies" Series, including the summary prepared by the CEPEJ-TF-DEL.
The CEPEJ particularly thanked the scientific expert, Ms Françoise CALVEZ (France) for her excellent work.
The CCJE representative stressed the complementarity between this report and Opinion No. 6 (2004) of the CCJE on “fair trial within a reasonable time and judges' role in trials, taking into account alternative means of dispute settlement”.
Following the introductory report presented by Ms Merethe RANUM (Norway), the CEPEJ adopted the report: "Time management of justice systems: a northern Europe study" (CEPEJ (2006) 14) and decided to publish it in its "CEPEJ Studies" Series.
The CEPEJ extended special thanks to experts Mr John JOHNSEN (Norway) and Ms Mirka SMOLEJ (Finland) for their excellent work. It also thanked the Finnish Ministry of Justice for its substantial financial contribution which had made this study possible.
Following the introductory report presented by Ms Ljiljana FILIPOVIC (Bosnia and Herzegovina), the CEPEJ adopted the “Compendium of "best practices” on time management of judicial proceedings" (CEPEJ (2006) 13) as a first road map towards concrete measures for addressing the length of judicial proceedings, which would require regular verification and updating. It invited the European courts or other competent bodies, particularly the Observers to the CEPEJ, to report any new best practices or ideas to the Secretariat for addition to this document.
The Secretariat said that an electronic version of the Compendium could include links to further information on the practices concerned.
The CEPEJ extended special thanks to scientific experts Mr Marco FABRI and Mr Francesco CONTINI for their excellent work, as well as to the Pilot courts that had contributed to the production of the Compendium.
The CEPEJ invited the member states to translate these three documents, where appropriate, and distribute them as widely as possible among decision makers and the legal professions, and in particular to use them in the training of judges, lawyers and other legal professionals.
It also invited its members to disseminate the"Checklist of indicators or the analysis of lengths of proceedings in the justice system" among public decision makers and the legal professions, if necessary with the support of the Secretariat, which had bilingual copies of the Checklist at their disposal. The list could also be found on the CEPEJ Internet site.
The CEPEJ generally thanked the members of the CEPEJ-TF-DEL for its work and the preparation of all the documents essential to the implementation of its Framework Programme on optimum and foreseeable timeframes for judicial proceedings.
Acting on a proposal by Mr Alan UZELAC, Chair of the CEPEJ-TF-DEL, the CEPEJ decided to work on an activity focusing specifically on the length of judicial proceedings, to form a better picture of lengths of proceedings in the member states, as so little tangible information on this subject was available. Based on the principle that it was difficult to reform judicial procedures to make them more efficient without knowing exactly what the situation was (difficulty of prescribing effective treatment without a reliable diagnosis), the CEPEJ decided to act as a Centre for the study and analysis of judicial time management, called SATURN[4]. This Centre would be run by a Groupe de pilotage whose terms of reference were set out in the programme of activities[5].
8. Cooperation with the network of pilot courts
Following the report presented by Mr John STACEY (United Kingdom) the CEPEJ, aware of the important role played by the Network of Pilot courts in implementing its programme of activities, approved the working programme with the network contained in document CEPEJ (2006) 12. The programme proposed inter alia that the Pilot courts form four working groups corresponding to the main tasks of the CEPEJ (evaluation, timeframes, quality and mediation).
9. Measuring the impact of the Council of Europe’s Recommendations on mediation
Following the report presented by Mr Raymond ZAMMIT (Malta), the CEPEJ endorsed the lines of work defined by the CEPEJ-GT-MED. It thanked it and the scientific expert Mr Julien LHUILLIER, for their excellent preparatory work on measuring the impact of the Council of Europe’s four recommendations on mediation, which would also serve as a basis for the preparation of guidelines.
Aware of the little time the working group had to accomplish a task of this magnitude and quality, it decided to extend the group’s terms of reference to include an additional meeting in 2007, in its present form and including one expert on criminal law to be appointed by the Bureau. The working group would finalise the report and guidelines in time for them to be submitted to the 9th plenary meeting of the CEPEJ for adoption.
10. Discussion of the draft programme of activities of the CEPEJ for 2007 with a view to its adoption
Following the report presented by Ms Laima GARNELIENE (Lithuania), the CEPEJ adopted its programme of activities for 2007 as set out in document CEPEJ (2006) 9. The programme would be implemented as budgetary resources permitted.
The CEPEJ invited the member states, through its members, to propose qualified experts to the Secretariat to set up working groups on evaluation (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL) and quality (CEPEJ-GT-QUAL), as well as the SATURN Centre’s Groupe de Pilotage. It instructed its Bureau to appoint the members of these working groups at its next meeting, bearing these proposals in mind.
The CEPEJ emphasised that implementing a continuous evaluation process of European judicial systems, assisting individual member states at their request and measuring the impact of the Council of Europe’s recommendations on mediation contributed fully to the CEPEJ’s implementation of that part of the Action Plan adopted by the Third Summit of Heads of State and Government which concerned it. It considered that its programme of activities for 2007 was in keeping with the relevant objectives of the Action Plan.
11. Assistance activities at the request of member states
Russian Federation
The rapporteur, Mr Michael VRONTAKIS (Greece), who was a member of the CEPEJ group of experts on the "Non-enforcement of court decisions against the state and its entities in the Russian Federation", informed the CEPEJ of the results of the Round Table organised in Strasbourg jointly with the Department for the execution of judgments of the Court, on 30 and 31 October 2006, as part of the follow-up to the Report the CEPEJ had adopted on the subject. The Russian Federation had been represented at a high level, notably by the President of the Supreme Arbitration Court, the Vice-President of the Supreme Court, the Director of the Federal Department of Bailiffs, the Russian Representative to the European Court of Human Rights and senior officials in the Presidential Administration, the Ministries of Finance and Health, the Federal Treasury and the Prokuratura. Constructive in-depth discussions had helped identify the main outstanding problems and given rise to a number of proposals, acceptable to all, for additional reforms to ensure that the Government effectively executed court decisions[6].
Following the Round Table Mr VRONTAKIS, with the Ministry of Justice, had organised an additional working visit for the group of experts to Athens (Greece) on 9 and 10 November.
The CEPEJ member in respect of the Russian Federation thanked the Greek authorities for their welcome and said how interested his authorities were in this cooperation, the results of which were already highly appreciated. He reiterated his wish to continue the cooperation in order to put the conclusions of the Round Table into practice.
The CEPEJ agreed to continue its cooperation with the Russian Federation in 2007 to support the practical implementation of the recommendations made in its report (CEPEJ (2005) 8) and these conclusions.
Croatia and Slovenia
The members of the CEPEJ in respect of Croatia and Slovenia announced that a follow-up seminar on "practical means of reducing delays in judicial systems, the excess workload on courts and absorbing the backlog of cases", concerning these two countries would be held in Croatia on 10 and 11 December 2006. They reiterated their interest in this useful on-going dialogue supported by the CEPEJ.
Lithuania
The CEPEJ member in respect of Lithuania announced that this country would be hosting an international Conference organised by the Ministry of justice on "Mediation in Europe: current challenges and future developments " (Vilnius, 24 and 25 May 2007). The CEPEJ offered its support for this conference and recommended sending one or more Council of Europe experts.
Romania
At the request of the CEPEJ member in respect of Romania, the CEPEJ agreed to cooperate with the Romanian authorities in examining extraordinary channels of appeal and preliminary questions in the country’s legal system.
General
At the request of the CEPEJ member in respect of Georgia, who wished to be able to consult the other CEPEJ members on questions of specific interest to the judicial reforms in Georgia, the CEPEJ confirmed that all the members of the CEPEJ and, if necessary, the Observers, could be consulted by a country’s delegation, through the Secretariat, on matters concerning judicial reforms.
Furthermore the CEPEJ invited those member states interested in receiving particular support to submit their proposals to the Secretariat as soon as possible, so that the Bureau could consider them in the context of the programme of activities for 2007, within the limits of the budgetary resources available.
12. Relations between the CEPEJ and other Council of Europe bodies
CCJE
The representative of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE), Mr Gerhard REISSNER (Austria), announced that the CCJE had adopted Opinion No. 8 (2006) on “The role of judges in the protection of the rule of law and human rights in the context of terrorism" and Opinion No. 9 on "The role of national judges in ensuring an effective application of international and European law". In 2007 the CCJE would work mainly on the bodies which guaranteed the independence of judges (a European Conference of judges on the theme "What Councils for Justice?" was to be held in Rome on 27 and 28 March 2007).
The CCJE had also prepared and published a Declaration on recent legal developments concerning the status of judges in Romania, in particular the doubt shed on the liability of judges. This Declaration followed a letter sent to the CCJE by the Association of Romanian Judges. The same letter had been sent to the CEPEJ, which had considered that this was more a matter for the CCJE than for the CEPEJ.
Mr REISSNER praised the high quality of the CEPEJ report on European judicial systems and confirmed that the CCJE was ready to examine the information on the status of judges contained in the report.
On behalf of the CCJE, he thanked the President, Mr DESCH, for the excellent cooperation between the two bodies, and hoped that this cooperation would continue under the new President of the CEPEJ.
CCPE
The representative of the Consultative Council of European Prosecutors (CCPE), Mr Vito MONETTI (Italy), said that this new body was ready and willing to co-operate with the CEPEJ. He took note of the CEPEJ’s proposal to analyse the information in the Report on European judicial systems relating to the status of prosecutors.
CDCJ
The representative of the European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ), Mr Inge L. BACKER, said that following the CEPEJ Report on follow-up to the opinions of the CCJE (CEPEJ (2005) 11) a group of specialists had been set up to review recommendation Rec (94) 12 on the independence, efficiency and role of judges. The CEPEJ and the CCJE would be invited to take part in this process.
He thanked the President, Mr DESCH, for the excellent co-operation between the two bodies and hoped that the co-operation would continue under the new President of the CEPEJ.
Lisbon Network
The Secretary of the Lisbon Network informed the CEPEJ of the new strategy adopted by the Lisbon Network to strengthen its role in judicial training policy in the Council of Europe and its member states.
He confirmed that the Network was ready to examine the information in the CEPEJ Report on European judicial systems relating to the training of judges.
Council of Europe Development Bank
The Secretary of the Partial Agreement of the Council of Europe Development Bank (CEB) informed the CEPEJ of the extension of the CEB’s range of action following the Third Summit of Heads of State and Government, enabling it to offer financial assistance, in the form of social guarantees and loans, to develop judicial infrastructure and training for the judicial professions.
13. Cooperation with the European Union
On behalf of the outgoing and current presidencies of the European Union, the CEPEJ members in respect of Finland, Mr Kari KIESILAINEN, and Germany, Mr Matthias HEGER, took stock and explained the prospects in the judicial field in the European Union. The broad lines of their contributions may be found in Appendix V hereto.
The CEPEJ particularly supported the Bremen Conference (29 - 31 May 2007) on “e-justice” organised by the German Presidency of the Union as follow-up to the Vienna Conference. It reiterated its desire to be involved in the European Union’s work in this field.
The Secretariat said that some fifteen states had submitted information on the celebration of the 4th European Day of Justice last October. The CEPEJ invited its members to let the Secretariat have any information concerning the celebration of Justice Day, to be posted on the CEPEJ Internet site.
The main event of the Day had been the 8th Conference of Presidents of Supreme Courts of the Council of Europe (Paris, Court of Cassation, 26 – 27 October 2006). On that occasion the 2006 Crystal Scales of Justice (see above) had been awarded to one of 18 initiatives from 9 European countries. The next edition of the "Crystal Scales of Justice" could be organised in 2008.
The CEPEJ supported Germany’s proposal to organise the main event of the 2007 European Day of Justice at Aachen, in co-operation with the Belgian and Dutch authorities.
14. Election of the Bureau
The CEPEJ elected its President and Vice-President by acclamation, for a two-year period:
Mr Fausto de SANTIS (Italy), President
Mr John STACEY (United Kingdom), Vice-President.
It also elected the following members of the Bureau by secret ballot,
Ms Elsa GARCIA MALTRAS de BLAS (Spain)
Mr Margus SARAPUU (Estonia)
15. Observers to the CEPEJ
The CEPEJ noted with interest the information transmitted by its Observers, several of whom (European Associations of Judges, Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe) had presented written contributions, which had been distributed to the participants and were available from the Secretariat. The President, Mr DESCH, thanked them for their concrete contribution to the CEPEJ’s activities and invited them to continue their co-operation under the programme of activities for 2007.
After examining the applications submitted to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe the CEPEJ unanimously decided to grant Observer status with the CEPEJ, for a period of two years (renewable):
to the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ),
to the American Bar Association – Central European and Eurasian Law Initiative (ABA-CEELI).
16. Presentation of the new CEPEJ Web site and communication strategy
The Secretariat presented the new CEPEJ Internet site. The CEPEJ welcomed this important effort to improve the communication of the CEPEJ. Underlining the fact that it had its own Statute, distinguishing it somewhat from other committees, the CEPEJ reiterated its wish for more direct access to its Internet site via the Council of Europe’s portal.
17. Other business
On behalf of all the CEPEJ members and observers Mr Loukis SAVVIDES extended his warmest thanks to Mr Eberhard DESCH for his four years at the head of the CEPEJ and his decisive action to develop the committee and give it a front-line role in the Council of Europe. The CEPEJ also commended on the work done by its Vice-President, Mr André POTOCKI, and Bureau members Mr Alan UZELAC and Mr Ciaran KELLY.
Mr DESCH thanked the CEPEJ in his turn for four years’ hard and particularly fruitful work and wished it every success in the pursuit of its essential mission with regard to the aims of the Council of Europe.
Appendix I
AGENDA
Opening of the meeting by Mr Guy DE VEL, Director General of Legal Affairs
Adoption of the agenda
Information by the President of the CEPEJ and the Secretariat
Exchange of views with Mr Guy CANIVET, First President of the French Court of Cassation
Welcoming address by Mr Eberhard DESCH, President of the CEPEJ
Address by Mr Guy CANIVET, First President of the French Court of Cassation
An architecture for the training of judges and prosecutors who could exercise the functions of Heads of large courts (within the framework of the bilateral cooperation activities of the CEPEJ)
Introduction by Mr Guy CANIVET
Report of the working meeting with CEPEJ experts at the Court of Cassation (24 November 2006)
Other European experiences: Mr Gabor SZEPLAKI-NAGY (Hungary) and Mr Mattias ALMQVIST (Sweden)
Discussion
Study session: presentation of the initiative awarded within the framework of the "Crystal Scales of Justice" 2006 (Thursday 9 December – 14.30)
Rapporteur: Mr Hans-Peter KIRCHGATTERER, President of the Regional Court of Linz (Austria)
Recent developments in the judicial field in the Council of Europe member states
Delegations are invited to inform the CEPEJ on recent relevant developments in their countries in the judicial field, where appropriate.
Report on "European judicial systems – Edition 2006"
Impact of the report in the member states: tour de table
Delegations are invited to inform the CEPEJ on recent impact of the report in the media and within the relevant political and judicial bodies in their country since its publication on 5 October 2006
Dissemination of the report
In-depth analysis of the Report: presentation of the on-going work of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL and possible studies by other relevant bodies of the Council of Europe (CCJE, CCPE, Lisbon Network)
Rapporteur: Mr. Fausto de SANTIS (Italy)
Continuation of the evaluation process
Cooperation with the European Union
Rapporteur: Ms. Elsa GARCIA MALTRAS de BLAS (Spain)
Implementation of the Framework-Programme: "A new objective for European judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe "
Dissemination and impact of the "Checklist of indicators for the analysis of lengths of proceedings in the justice system": tour de table
Discussion of the draft report "Length of court proceedings based on the case-law of the ECHR" in view of its adoption
Rapporteur: Mr Jacques BÜHLER (Switzerland)
Discussion of the draft report on "Reducing judicial time in the countries of Northern Europe" in view of its adoption
Rapporteur: Ms Merethe Baustad RANUM (Norway)
Discussion of the draft Compendium: "Best practices on time management in judicial proceedings ” in view of its adoption
Rapporteur: Ms Ljiljana FILIPOVIĆ (Bosnia and Herzegovina)
Continuation of the work of the CEPEJ on timeframes of judicial proceedings, in the light of the work of the CEPEJ-TF-DEL and the findings of the report "European judicial systems – Edition 2006"
Rapporteur: Mr Alan UZELAC (Croatia)
Cooperation with the CEPEJ Network of Pilot Courts
Rapporteur: Mr John STACEY (United Kingdom)
Measure of the impact of the Recommendations of the Council of Europe on mediation
Presentation of the work of the CEPEJ-GT-MED and discussion of the report on the impact of the Recommendations of the Council of Europe on mediation
Rapporteur: Mr Ray ZAMMIT (Malta)
Follow up to be given to the work of the CEPEJ-GT-MED
Discussion of the draft programme of CEPEJ activities for 2007 in view of its adoption
Rapporteur: Ms Laima GARNELIENE (Lithuania)
Implementation of the Action Plan of the 3rd Summit of the Heads of State and Government (Warsaw, May 2005)
Assistance activities of the CEPEJ to member states
Round table on "Non-enforcement of court decisions against the state
and its entities in the Russian Federation: remaining problems and solutions required" (Strasbourg, 30 – 31 October 2006)
Rapporteur: Mr Michael VRONTAKIS (Greece)
Request for CEPEJ’s assistance activities from member states
Members of the CEPEJ are requested to prepare for the meeting, if need be, proposals of concrete activities in the light of the specific needs of their state in 2007.
Relations between the CEPEJ and the other bodies of the Council of Europe
Consultative Council of European Judges
Rapporteur: Mr Gehrard REISSNER, Member of the CCJE in respect of Austria
Consultative Council of European Prosecutors
Rapporteur: Mr Vito MONETTI, CCPE member in respect of Italy
Lisbon Network
Rapporteur: Mr Jean CLAUS, Secretary of the Lisbon Network
Council of Europe Development Bank
Rapporteur: Ms Giusi PAJARDI, Head of the Secretariat of the Partial Agreement
Co-operation with the European Union
Last developments within the European Union in the judicial field
Rapporteurs: Mr Kari KIESILAINEN (Finland) and Mr Mathias HEGER (Germany) on behalf of the outgoing and incoming presidencies of the European Union
4th edition of the European day of Civil justice and 2nd edition of the Crystal Scales of Justice Award
2007 Joint Conference
Election of the Bureau
Observers to the CEPEJ
Information concerning their activities
Organisations who have been granted observer status with the CEPEJ are entitled, if they wish, to make an oral presentation of their current activities relevant to the CEPEJ and/or submit a written information to the Secretariat which could be distributed during the meeting.
Examination of requests for observer status:
European Network of Judicial Councils (ENJC)
American Bar Association – Central European and Eurasian Law Initiative (ABA-CEELI)
Presentation of the new Internet Website of the CEPEJ and communication strategy, by Ms Sandrine MAROLLEAU, in charge of communication at the Secretariat of the CEPEJ
Any other business
Appendix II
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
CEPEJ MEMBERS / MEMBRES DE LA CEPEJ
ALBANIA/ALBANIE : Apologised/ Excusée
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
Georg STAWA, Public Prosecutor, Directorate for Central Administration and Coordination, 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 Service Juridique, Service Public Fédéral (SPF), Ministère de la Justice, BRUXELLES
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA/BOSNIE-HERZEGOVINE
Ljiljana FILIPOVIĆ, Judge, Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Visoko sudsko i tužilačko vijeće BiH/High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council BiH, SARAJEVO
Mersudin PRUZAN, Deputy Disciplinary Prosecutor, Office of the Disciplinary Prosecutor, High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council of BiH, SARAJEVO
Adis HODZIC, Head of the Budget and Statistics Department, Secretariat High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council of BiH, 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
Mario VUKELIĆ, Judge, High Commercial Court, ZAGREB
CYPRUS/CHYPRE
Loukis SAVVIDES, Ex-Judge of the Supreme Court of Cyprus – Legal Consultant, LIMASSOL
CZECH REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
Ivana BORZOVÁ, Head, Department of Civil Supervision, Ministry of Justice, 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
Jean-Paul SUDRE, Substitut Général près la Cour d’Appel de Nancy, NANCY
GEORGIA/GEORGIE
Ekaterine TKESHELASHVILI, Chairperson of the Court of Appeal of Tbilisi, TBILISI
GERMANY/ALLEMAGNE
Eberhard DESCH, Head of Division of International Law, Federal Ministry of Justice, BERLIN, Chair of 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, DÜSSELDORF
GREECE/GRECE
Michael VRONTAKIS, Vice-Président du Conseil d’Etat, Arsakeion, 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
Arnfrídur EINARSDOTTIR, Judge, Court of Administration, Heradsdomur Reykjavikur, REYKJAVIK
IRELAND/IRLANDE
Ciaran KELLY, Principal Registrar High Court, Courts Service, Four Courts, DUBLIN – Apologized / Excusé
David FENNEL, Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, 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
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, Centre administratif Pierre Werner, LUXEMBOURG-KIRCHBERG
MALTA/MALTE
Raymond ZAMMIT, Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs, Vincente Buildings, VALLETTA
MOLDOVA
Lilia GRIMALSCHI, Chef adjoint de Direction, Ministère de la Justice, CHISINAU
MONACO
Jean Antoine CURRAU, Assistant référendaire près de la Cour d’Appel, Direction des Services judiciaires, Palais de Justice, MONACO
NETHERLANDS/PAYS‑BAS
Jacques Wijnen, Senior policymaker, Judicial Sytem Department, Ministry of Justice, THE HAGUE,
NORWAY/NORVEGE
Merethe Baustad RANUM, Senior legal adviser, Judicial Department, National Court Administration, Domstoladministrasjonen,TRONDHEIM
POLAND/POLOGNE
Tadeusz ERECINSKI, Professor of Law, President of the Supreme Court of Poland (Civil Chamber), WARSAW
PORTUGAL
João ARSENIO DE OLIVEIRA, Conseiller juridique, Bureau de la Politique législative et du Plan, Ministère de la Justice, LISBONNE
ROMANIA/ROUMANIE
Vasilica-Cristi DANILET, Juge, Conseiller du Ministre de la justice, Ministère de la Justice, BUCAREST
THE RUSSISAN FEDERATION/FEDERATION DE RUSSIE
Yury BERESTNEV, Senior State Legal Advisor, State Legal Directorate of the President of the Russian Federation (GGPU), MOSCOW
SERBIA /SERBIE : Apologised / Excusée
SLOVAK REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE SLOVAQUE
Igor BELKO, Judge, Supreme Court, Zupné namestie 13, BRATISLAVA
SLOVENIA/SLOVENIE
Marko SORLI, Vice President of the Supreme Court, LJUBLJANA
SPAIN/ESPAGNE
Elsa GARCÍA-MALTRÁS DE BLAS, Public Prosecutor, Legal Advisor, Ministry of Justice, DG International Legal Cooperation, MADRID
SWEDEN/SUEDE
Mattias ALMQVIST, Legal adviser, Division for Procedural Law and Court Issues, Ministry of Justice, STOCKHOLM
SWITZERLAND/SUISSE
Jacques BUEHLER, Secrétaire Général suppléant, Tribunal fédéral suisse, LAUSANNE
François PAYCHÈRE, Juge, Président du Tribunal administratif et membre du Conseil supérieur de la magistrature de la République et canton de Genève, GENEVE
TURKEY/TURQUIE
Selda SAYGI, Judge, General Directorate of International Law and Foreign Relations, Ministry of Justice, ANKARA
UKRAINE
Olesya BARTOVSHCHUK, Head of Division for Coordination of Execution of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), Office of the Government Agent before the ECHR, KYIV
UNITED KINGDOM/ROYAUME‑UNI
Deirdre BOYLAN, Policy Officer, European and International Policy Division, Department for Constitutional Affairs, LONDON
John STACEY, Head of Civil and Family Procedures Branch, HM Court Service, Civil Law and Justice Division, LONDON
***
OBSERVER STATES / ETATS OBSERVATEURS
HOLY SEE/SAINT-SIEGE
Odile GANGHOFER, Docteur en droit, Mission permanente du Saint-Siège, STRASBOURG, FRANCE
JAPAN/JAPON
Akio NOSE, Judge of Hiroshima District Court, HIROSHIMA
Hidefumi HAYASHI, Judge of Nagasaki District Court, NAGASAKI
Yasushi FUKE, Consul (Attorney), Consulate-General of Japan, "Tour Europe", STRASBOURG, FRANCE
MONTENEGRO
Marina MIRANOVIC, Senior Adviser, Department of Justice, Ministry of Justice, PODGORICA
***
EUROPEAN UNION / UNION EUROPEENNE
aNTOINE buchet, DG JLS (justice, Libertés et Sécurité), Commission européenne, BRUXELLES, Belgique - Apologised / Excusé
***
OBSERVERS / OBSERVATEURS
COUNCIL OF THE BARS AND LAW SOCIETIES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION/CONSEIL DES BARREAUX DE l’UNION EUROPEENNE (CCBE)
Jana WURSTOVA, Lawyer, Adviser, Czech Bar Association, Ceska Advokatni Komora, PRAHA, Czech republic
Birgit Swatschek, Conseiller juridique, BRUSSELS, BELGIUM
EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION OF JUDGES / Association européenne des MAGISTRATS (EAJ)
Virgilijus VALANČIUS, President of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, President of the European Association of Judges, VILNIUS, LITHUANIA
EUROPEAN UNION OF RECHTSPFLEGER AND COURT CLERKS/UNION EUROPEENNE DES GREFFIERS DE JUSTICE (EUR)
Gabriele GUARDA, Greffier en chef, Tribunal de Padoue, Président de l'EUR, PADOVA, Italie
Anna MANDARINO, Greffier en chef, Tribunale de Bellonu, via Segato, BELLUNO, Italie
Jean-Jacques KUSTER, Greffier en chef, tribunal d'instance, STRASBOURG CEDEX, FRANCE
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF BAILIFFS/UNION INTERNATIONALE DES HUISSIERS DE JUSTICE ET OFFICIERS JUDICIAIRES (UIHJ)
Mathieu CHARDON, Premier secrétaire, VERSAILLES, FRANCE
EUROPEAN FEDERATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES/FEDERATION EUROPEENNE DES JUGES ADMINISTRATIFS
Bernard EVEN, Vice-Président du Tribunal administratif de Strasbourg, 67000 STRASBOURG, FRANCE
M. SCHOCKWEILER, Vice-Président de la Fédération européenne des Juges administratifs et Premier Vice-Président du Tribunal administratif de Strasbourg, STRASBOURG, FRANCE
Pierre VINCENT, Président de la Fédération européenne des Juges administratifs, Tribunal administratif, STRASBOURG, FRANCE
MAGISTRATS EUROPEENS POUR LES DEMOCRATIES ET LES LIBERTES (MEDEL)
Jutta SIEFERT, Judge, Social Appelate Court, STUTTGART, GERMANY
Leandro VALGOLIO, Préssident du Sénat à la Cour d’Appel, Magistrat, Juge à la Cour d'Appel de la Basse-Saxonie, Membre du Bureau du MEDEL, KARLSRUHE, ALLEMAGNE
european judicial training network / Réseau Européen de Formation Judiciaire (REFJ)
Gilles CHARBONNIER, Secrétaire Général, BRUXELLES, Belgique
Quentin BalthazarT, Policy Advisor, assistant to the Secretary General, BRUXELLES, BELGIQUE
***
PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE/ASSEMBLEE PARLEMENTAIRE DU CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE : Apologised / Excusée
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS / COUR EUROPENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME
Paola TONARELLI-LACORE, Registry, European Court of Human Rights/Greffe de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme, STRASBOURG
EUROPEAN COMMITTEE ON LEGAL CO-OPERATION/COMITE EUROPEEN DE COOPERATION JURIDIQUE (CDCJ)
Inge Lorange BACKER, Director General of the Legislation Department, Ministry of Justice, 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
Consultative Council of the European Prosecutors / CONSEIL CONSULTATIF DE PROCUREURS EUROPEENS (CCPE)
Vito MONETTI, Substitut du Procureur de la République, Procura Generale presso la Corte di Cassazione, Cour de Cassation, ROME, ITALIE
STEERING COMMITTEE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS / COMITE DIRECTEUR POUR LES DROITS DE L’HOMME (CDDH)
Vitaliano ESPOSITO, Premier Avocat Général, Cour de Cassation, Palais de justice, ROME, ITALIE
***
EXPERT OF THE CEPEJ-TF-DEL
Jon T. JOHNSEN, Professor in Law, Dean, Faculty of law, University of Oslo, NORWAY
***
SPECIAL GUESTS / INVITES SPECIAUX
Guy CANIVET, Premier Président de la Cour de Cassation, PARIS, FRANCE
Hans Peter KIRCHGATTERER, President of the Regional Court of Linz, LINZ, AUSTRIA
***
SECRETARIAT
Directorate General I - Legal Affairs / Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques
Guy DE VEL, Director General of Legal Affairs / Directeur Général des Affaires Juridiques
Stéphane LEYENBERGER, Secretary of the CEPEJ / Secrétaire de la CEPEJ
Muriel DECOT, Co-Secretary of the CEPEJ / Co-secrétaire de la CEPEJ
Pim ALBERS, Special Advisor to the CEPEJ Secretariat / Conseiller spécial auprès du Secrétariat de la CEPEJ
Jean-Pierre GEILLER, Documentation / Documentation
Sandrine MAROLLEAU, Communication / Communication
Elisabeth HEURTEBISE, Assistante / Assistant
Interpreters / Interprètes
Christopher TYCZKA
Bettina LUDEWIG
Appendix III
Opening of the meeting by Mr Guy de Vel
Director General of Legal Affairs
Ladies and gentlemen,
I particularly wanted to be here this morning to open this 8th plenary meeting of the CEPEJ, for several reasons, each of which is sufficient in itself.
We are honoured to have with us today Mr Guy Canivet, a staunch supporter of the rule of law, the Council of Europe and the CEPEJ in particular, whose work he has followed closely since its inception in 2003.
To my mind, his presence is a sign of the French judiciary’s firm backing for and genuine interest in the CEPEJ’s practical, ground-breaking measures for public policy-makers and legal practitioners in our member states.
In drawing on the CEPEJ’s experience and networks of experts in identifying and training future heads of large courts, Mr Canivet, you have given the commission a major vote of confidence. I hope that the recent co-operation, which will continue in a few moments with a discussion with CEPEJ members, will provide additional material for the report that you are to make shortly to the French Minister of Justice, on a subject that is important for the efficient functioning of the justice system.
I would also like to thank you for taking the initiative of organising a seminar next week at the Court of Cassation, in order to officially present the CEPEJ’s report to the French legal community.
I know that in you, the Council of Europe has a close ally, one who has been unflagging in his support for the common values that we are working to uphold on behalf of 800 million Europeans.
I also wish to express my gratitude to Mr Desch at this his last meeting as President of the CEPEJ, which he helped bring into being four years ago.
Thanks to you, Mr Desch, the CEPEJ has come a long way. Without your drive and encouragement, I doubt whether we would now be establishing ourselves in all the member states as a key forum for discussion and debate on the future of the justice system in Europe.
Wherever I’ve gone in recent months, people are talking about the CEPEJ, whether it be in connection with its ground-breaking measures, the tangible results that it offers legal practitioners or the merits of the process for evaluating judicial systems, that long-awaited benchmark which, although sometimes regarded with slight trepidation, is universally recognised as being essential for judicial policies in Europe.
We are all of us aware of just how indebted we are to you, Mr Desch, and I wish to thank you most sincerely, as well as the other members of the Bureau: Mr Potocki, Mr Uzelac and Mr Kelly.
I also wish every success to the new Bureau that is going to be elected shortly. I am confident that it will continue to run the CEPEJ in the same spirit that has guided the commission’s activities up until now.
Far be it from me to try to influence your choice in this matter, but I would just remind you of the terms of the relevant Committee of Ministers Resolution which states that members are to be appointed “with an equitable distribution of posts, taking into account in particular, geographical distribution, gender balance and, where relevant, legal systems”.
Ladies and gentlemen.
As this is also my last CEPEJ meeting before I retire, I wish to thank and congratulate each and every one of you on your hard work over the past four years. I will not attempt to list all the key projects undertaken in this relatively short period of time, from the Framework Programme on timeframes to the setting-up of the network of pilot courts, not forgetting the successful bilateral activities in the Netherlands, Malta, Croatia, Slovenia, the Russian Federation and, just recently, with France’s Court of Cassation.
Allow me, however, to dwell for a moment on the evaluation of judicial systems. In all my time at the Council of Europe, and in particular the 7 years that I served as Secretary to the Committee of Ministers, rarely have I seen the Ministers’ Deputies give such an enthusiastic welcome as the one they gave your report last September. With this report, you have set in motion a new and highly rewarding process for member states, based on sound methods. You have introduced a unique mechanism that has become a major plank in the Council of Europe’s activities for the years ahead.
The Committee of Ministers has high hopes of this process. So does the European Union, as the Vice-President of the European Commission, Mr Frattini, pointed out in Rome last July.
As I see it, it is very important for the Council of Europe and for the future of the CEPEJ that you should continue firmly down this path, through a regular process of evaluation that will help establish the CEPEJ as the reference body for providing expertise on and evaluating justice systems in Europe.
I realise how much work is entailed here, first and foremost for the member states, where there are hundreds of items of information to be collected, but also for the experts and our own secretariat. At the same time, however, I know it is well worth the effort. We will do everything in our power to facilitate the task of all the parties involved, not least by making use of the opportunities afforded by information technology. Later on, once member states have assimilated the process and it has become pretty much a matter of routine, everyone’s job will be that much easier.
It is my hope, therefore, that from the end of next year, you will embark on a further evaluation round, so that your report on judicial systems, which is now awaited with eager anticipation, can be published every two years.
For it is important to be able to gauge long-term trends and to highlight the genuine efforts made in many states to improve the functioning of the justice system.
On this hinges the credibility and value of the exercise, and the political support that it enjoys.
I have every confidence in your ability to weigh the pros and cons when it comes to making this important decision, and would just like to say that the secretariat will do everything it can to make your task easier.
Rest assured that as an ordinary European citizen, I will continue to take a close interest in your activities, not least because in recent years, they have been among the most important and innovative in the Council of Europe, and an example of the kind of path our organisation needs to follow if it is to retain its position as the common European home of human rights and the rule of law.
Appendix IV
La formation des chefs de juridictions en Hongrie*
Le chef de juridiction est l’organisateur d’une structure administrative, l’animateur d’une équipe. L’accomplissement de ses tâches implique donc, outre la maîtrise du droit, la définition d’un niveau de contrôle, une réflexion organisationnelle et l’adoption d’un style de relations humaines.
Dans la République de Hongrie, la juridiction est exercée par la Cour suprême de la République de Hongrie, par les cours d’appel, par le tribunal de la capitale et les tribunaux des départements, ainsi que par les tribunaux locaux et par les tribunaux de travail.
La nomination d’un chef de juridiction est obligatoirement et sans exception est précédée par un concours public qui est ouvert pour tous les candidats remplissant les conditions énumérées dans l’appel d’offres. La nomination des présidents des cours d’appel et ceux des tribunaux départementaux est faite par le Conseil National de la Justice à une période déterminée. Avant la nomination, tous les juges du tribunal ou de la cour d’appel concerné tient un conseil sur les candidatures, en donnant avis.
Etant donné qu’en Hongrie les chefs de juridictions ne sont pas choisis à nominer mais sont nominés après un concours, il n’est pas prévu une formation institutionnelle des chefs de juridictions à venir. En tout état de choses, reste toujours un des buts marquants du Conseil National de la Justice la formation continue du haut niveau des présidents des tribunaux en fonction.
Dans le cadre du projet central de formation des tribunaux il y a toujours de séries d’ entraînement pour les chefs de tribunaux, incluant de conférences, mettant en commun des expériences, traitement des cas d’espèces seul ou en groupe, des études de cas, de jeux de rôle, de jeux de situation. Au cours de ces séances de formation on appuie sur l’approfondissement des compétences stratégiques suivantes:
la pratique de management
la pratique de communication
la pratique de gérer les conflits
Au cours de deux ans passés il y avait des consultations régionales avec la participation des présidents de la cour d’appel régionale, les présidents des tribunaux départementaux et de tribunaux de ville de la région et, les vice-présidents de ces juridictions. Ces séminaires leur permet de mener ensemble une réflexion sur les évolutions de la Justice et sur les méthodes de conduite du changement. Des questions de fond ont été traitées comme: indépendance de la justice et gestion de ses moyens, augmentation de la demande de Justice et qualité de la Justice. Ont été aussi examinées les questions opérationnelles du management et de la communication au sein de ces juridictions, de la mobilisation des magistrats et fonctionnaires autour d’objectifs prioritaires.
Ils ont été lancés de sessions spécifiques aussi. Ces réunions ont offert la possibilité de présenter la situation générale des juridictions et, elles ont pour objectif de confronter les expériences vécues dans l’exercice de fonction, de recenser les difficultés rencontrées, de rechercher des éléments de solution et de réexamen éventuel des priorités.
Pour les chefs de tribunaux locaux on a organisé aussi de sessions de deux jours sur les questions de management.
Également pour les présidents de chambre il y a de sessions organisées en deux jours. Ces sessions associent les préoccupations d’échange des expériences, d’actualisation des connaissances.
En tout état de chose, pour les chefs de juridictions la possibilité est toujours ouverte de participer à n’importe quelles formations (séminaires, conférences, entraînements) organisées pour les magistrats et ils en profitent beaucoup.
En Hongrie le 1er septembre a été inaugurée l’Académie judiciaire hongroise à Budapest pour la formation initiale et continue des magistrats du siège, avec le soutien de la Commission européenne. L’Académie a élaboré déjà un projet de programme pour l’entraînement commun des chefs de juridictions européens dans le cadre du Réseau Européen de Formation Judiciaire (REFJ). Le succès de ces entraînements est assuré du point de vue de l’organisation, si les chefs de juridictions seraient regroupés par exemple selon des instances différentes de juridiction.
Je pense qu’on pourrait également organiser ces entraînements au niveau européen sur les sujets qui pourrait être intéressés pour tous les pays membres du Conseil de l’Europe. Par exemple, la transparence de la justice, la protection de données dans la justice, les relations entre la justice et l’exécutif, la déontologie des magistrats, ou bien sur les questions traitées par le Rapport de la CEPEJ sur les systèmes judiciaires européens.
L’implication de l’Académie judiciaire hongroise dans ces conférences traduirait également l’attachement de l’école au développement d’une formation judiciaire de dimension européenne et sa détermination à remplir les objectifs définis par le Conseil National de la Justice, tendant à la création d’une culture judiciaire européenne, vecteur essentiel d’une coopération judiciaire efficace sur l’ensemble du territoire européen.
The training of heads of courts in Sweden **
The training process of judges to become court presidents consists of two parts. First a training programme, "Future Leader?", which take place before the judge becomes a court president. Second an individual training programme which takes place after the judge becomes a court president.
Judges who want to know more about leadership and the role of a court president and consider themselves as possible court presidents can apply to participate in the training programme “Future Leader?”. This programme generally aims to increase the knowledge of leadership issues in the Swedish judiciary, thus making more court president candidates aware of the tasks and duties of a court president. The programme has run for three years now, and this far, around 80 judges have participated, as I understand, successfully. It’s a programme with groups of 16 participants that meet first for a one-day introduction and then on three occasions, each lasting three days. It demands great activity and work from the participants and it also demands the full support of the court president in the trainees’ “home court”. It is important to note that the successful participation in this training programme does not guarantee a future position as a court president. The selection of court presidents and other chief judges follows a specific routine and in this procedure, this training is considered a merit along with other merits.
As for appointed presidents of courts, individual training programmes are designed based on the court president’s personal needs and requests. Focus in this training is on the role as an employer in the Swedish administration – labour law, policies as a governmental employer, the responsibility for the working environment and staff development. Dealing with mass media is another important part of this training. There are also yearly “get together days” for the court presidents and their heads of administration. In the framework of this programme you could focus for instance on the judge's certain abilities and needs for training regarding leadership in large courts.
** Presentation by Mr Mattias ALMQVIST, CEPEJ member in respect of Sweden
Appendix V
Recent developments in the judicial field in Council of Europe member states: roundtable discussion[7]
Andorra – The new criminal and criminal procedure codes have been in force for a year now and further reforms are planned. The procedure governing payment orders (debts under €3,000) has come into force.
Armenia – A judicial code is being drafted. The code of administrative procedure has been adopted. Work is under way to improve witness and victim protection.
Austria – Debate under way on assigning judicial staff according to the workload.
Azerbaijan – The process of judicial reform is continuing: increase in the number of judges, new committee for selecting judges.
Belgium – Enforcement courts to be set up in February 2007. A draft law on judicial training, establishing a judicial training institute, is being drafted. The committee for the modernisation of the justice system has been set up to consider, inter alia, decentralising the way courts are run. A draft law to reduce the backlog of cases is being drawn up.
Bosnia and Herzegovina – It is not yet known how the recent elections will affect judicial reform. The courts for minor offences have been overhauled. A wireless computer network has been installed for judges and prosecutors.
Croatia – An integrated case management computer system has been set up in a number of pilot courts, based on the Austrian system, and may be extended to the rest of the judiciary. As part of the effort to streamline the judicial system, some courts have been amalgamated. The courts are still struggling with large backlogs.
Cyprus – draft amendments to the criminal procedure have been tabled, concerning inter alia phone-tapping. Mediation has been introduced as part of the civil procedure.
Czech Republic – A new law on bankruptcy has been introduced.
Denmark – A reorganisation of the district courts is under way.
Estonia – First instance courts were regrouped (6 courts instead of 20), but court houses and court staff remained at places (more flexibility and equal workloads). A new case management system was set up. All the district courts have been equipped with videoconference equipment (mostly in use to connect prisons, but also foreign countries). All Estonian court houses have been covered with open wireless internet. New civil procedure entered into force (payment order for uncontested claims). In criminal, a new fast-track procedure for judgments delivered within 48 hours has been introduced.
Finland - In the context of the 2005 reorganisation of the Ministry of Justice, the Court Administration Unit has as its main task i) the performance-based management of the court system (annual negotiations with the individual courts for the setting of performance targets and the allocation of operational resources), ii) the judicial divisions in the country (merge of small District Courts - 58 District Courts should be reduced to approximately 30). The newly established Strategy and Legislation Unit is involved in the drafting of middle-term strategic plans for the judicial sectors. A reform of the judicial training system is under way.
France – A debate on judicial reform is under way, which is expected to lead to legislative reform, ahead of the presidential and parliamentary elections. Among the issues being discussed is the disciplinary liability of judges.
Georgia – A reform of the district courts is being carried out, to widen the powers of the courts of first instance and provide a number of specialised judges. Lay judges have been introduced to deal with minor disputes. All the courts have been provided with new equipment.
Germany - Debate under way on large-scale reform of the justice system. Incorporation of the commission’s rules on payment orders and minor disputes.
Greece – Two draft laws have been tabled: one on simplifying proceedings and speeding up the processing of cases in administrative courts and the other on the possibility of filing an appeal in the event of failure to process a case within a reasonable time.
Hungary – Inauguration of the Judicial Academy (for judges).
Ireland – Efforts to modernise the courts are under way. A judicial council is to be set up. The most serious criminal cases are now dealt with under a centralised procedure in Dublin.
Iceland – New opportunities for mediation are now available in criminal proceedings.
Italy – The new laws on the recruitment, training of and disciplinary action against judges and on court management have been criticised by the Judicial Service Commission; a wide-ranging consultation is currently under way with a view to revising them. The Minister of Justice has set up a 10-member commission (including Mr de Santis) to improve the efficiency of justice: the entire works of the CEPEJ have been forwarded to it.
Latvia – The Ministry of Justice is implementing the target project "Systems of dispute solution and training of practicing judges": assessment of the potential mechanisms for introducing mediation. The Criminal Procedural Law (in force from October 2005) has established the investigation judge, responsible for the observance of human rights in criminal proceedings.
Lithuania – A draft law on the courts has been tabled. It concerns mainly the selection of judges, the appointment of presidents of courts and the accountability of judges.
Luxembourg – A national conference on the justice system has been instituted by the Minister of Justice with a view to identifying existing problems and proposing reforms. An interim report is to be published in February 2007.
Malta - A new code of administrative justice has been introduced. Amendments to the procedure governing civil enforcement (possibility of seizing shares in commercial companies; payment orders for debts of up to €8,000) and the length of proceedings (3-year limit; possibility for the president of the court to take a judge off a case) have also been introduced. In family law, arbitration can be used to divide up property.
Moldova – New laws are being drafted to deal with judicial organisation, the status of judges, the Judicial Qualification Board and the accountability of judges. Responsibility for the police has been transferred to the Ministry of Justice.
Monaco – Reforms are under way as regards the codes of civil and criminal procedure and the training of judges.
Netherlands – The independent commission for the evaluation of the justice system is due to publish its report on 11 December; it has studied the CEPEJ’s report. A debate is under way on the possibility of introducing lay judges.
Poland – New provisions have been introduced concerning mediation and arbitration. A new law deals with immediate summary trials, with courts operating round the clock. A draft law on self-administration of the legal professions is being considered.
Portugal – New legislation has been introduced in the administrative and fiscal sectors. New civil procedural provisions are being trialled in some courts. The appeal procedures are being reformed and a new institutional act on the Ministry of Justice is being drafted.
Romania – A debate is under way on the accountability of judges and prosecutors (legislative amendments imposing tougher penalties for serious disciplinary offences). A campaign against corruption in the judiciary has been launched (video clips). The codes of criminal and civil procedure are to be revised, including the juvenile justice system. Court decisions can now be accessed on line. All the Council of Europe recommendations in the field of justice have been translated into Romanian and circulated to the courts.
Russian Federation – A medium-term programme (5 years) for the development of the judicial system is under way. With a budget of 2 million euros, it covers mainly technical aspects: logistical support for courts, widespread use of the internet, online publication of court decisions, digital recording of hearings, introduction of telecommunication links between criminal courts and prisons so that prisoners do not have to be moved.
Slovenia – The backlog of cases continues to pose problems. The legislation on courts and judges is in the process of being revised in an effort to improve the mobility of judges and case management.
Spain – Certain judicial administration tasks have been centralised in a registry serving several courts. A national commission on judicial statistics has been set up.
Sweden – Steps are being taken to enable heads of courts to speed up proceedings.
Switzerland - A new law on the federal court is to come into force in 2007, concerning in particular access to the Federal Court: simplification of the appeals procedure (the number of types of appeals is to be reduced from 20 to 4), possibility of communicating with the Court electronically, all court decisions to be referred to a court of appeal at cantonal level before they can be referred to the Federal Court.
Turkey – A new computer system is due to come on stream in 2007 within the judicial system (e-justice). The reforms under way are aimed mainly at bringing Turkey’s legislation into line with the European Union acquis (application of new codes).
United Kingdom – The debate over institutional and constitutional reform is continuing.
Appendix VI
The Results of the Finnish Presidency of the EU
Kari Kiesiläinen, Director General
Ministry of Justice, Department of Judicial Administration
Distinguished Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentleman,
It has been five months since the 7th plenary meeting in Rome where I had the pleasure to present the goals of the Finnish Presidency. At this point most of the Presidency is now behind us. In Rome I did mention that we would be heading for a busy Fall with a number of important meetings. Until today we have been hosting not only the Council meetings but also an informal Council in Tampere. In addition, we have held a number of meetings with third countries in the troikka composition, as well as many other multilateral and bilateral meetings and visits. Thus, I regard this as a good time to provide you with an overview of progress during our Presidency.
First of all, I am pleased with the overall success achieved during Finland's term of Presidency in promoting justice affairs. But, there has been progress of individual projects in the fields of criminal and civil law too. However, at the same time I would like to emphasize that the Finnish Presidency is not yet over. These last weeks before the Christmas holidays are very important to justice and home affairs. We still have ahead of us the European Council (15 Dec). This meeting has a point on the agenda that deals with the review of the Hague Programme.
But, before going in to the topics of today I need to mention that there have been unforeseen events that the Presidency has the responsibility to deal with. During the Finnish Presidency the major such event was naturally the war in Lebanon. No one could have foreseen its violent eruption.
Among justice and home affairs, an event that had consequences that were difficult to foresee was the decision of the European Court of Justice on the agreement between the EU and the United States on the transfer of data regarding airplane passengers. The negotiation situation was difficult and the time limits tight. Also in this connection the major goal of the Presidency was to secure the interests and rights of Union citizens.
The worst outcome from the point of view of citizens would have been a situation in which individual Member States would have entered into negotiations leading to differing results. Reaching a result in the negotiations required once again finding a balance between the security interests and fundamental rights. As a result of the solution there was no disturbance in air traffic and the authorities of the United States continued to respect the data protection commitments that they had undertaken in 2004. However, the agreement that was negotiated is only a temporary one. It is for the next German Presidency to create a permanent arrangement.
To begin my review with pending matters, I would like to state at the outset that I regard it as important to be able to move forward not only in the major fundamental questions of integration, but also in the day-to-day work of the Union. As I noted to you in Rome, the confidence of our citizens is not something that we can retain as a privilege, but instead it must be secured again and again.
The security of citizens in an integrating Europe can be strengthened by ensuring that crossing the borders between Member States does not provide the offender with immunity from the appropriate sanctions for his or her acts. We regard the promotion of initiatives, based on the principle of mutual recognition, as very important in police cooperation and cooperation in criminal matters.
The goal is an unbroken chain:
an offender can be arrested in any Member State on the basis of a European Arrest Warrant,
the evidence needed in criminal proceedings can be transferred on the basis of an European Evidence Warrant,
a sentence imposed in one Member State can be taken into consideration in new criminal proceedings in another Member State, and
a person on whom a custodial sentence has been imposed can be transferred back to his or her country of residence on the basis of the framework decision proposed by Finland, Sweden and Austria. It is this goal that we are seeking.
As an example of the progress that we have achieved in promoting this goal I could mention the framework decision on the taking into consideration of a sentence in new criminal proceedings in another Member State. At present, sentences imposed abroad are generally not taken into consideration, which places Union citizens in a different position and favours offenders who are active in different Member States.
It is my pleasure to report that the EU justice ministers reached an agreement earlier this week (JHA Council December 4-5) on taking previous convictions in other EU member states into consideration in new criminal proceedings.
This is a very important act that will advance the equal treatment of offenders. The status of those convicted of crimes will be the same regardless of where in the EU they were previously convicted. The consideration of convictions in other member states will take place according to each member state's own laws.
But, consideration of convictions imposed in another member state requires that the court have knowledge of previous convictions. In order to facilitate the exchange of information between member states, an electronic database of criminal records will be built. The deliberations on this project will continue during Germany's EU presidency.
The European Evidence Warrant that I have already mentioned was adopted already during the Austrian Presidency.
Another example is the framework decision on the transfer of prisoners, which is similarly an important element of the programme for mutual recognition. In this respect I would like to highlight importance of the opinion of the European Parliament in July. Indeed, the proposal was in many respects amended in the direction suggested by the European Parliament.
The key content of the regulations facilitating the transfer of sentenced persons was approved by the Justice and Home Affairs Council on Monday. However, the Council failed to reach an unanimous decision. The final approval of the Framework Decision will therefore be passed on to the next President, Germany. The proposal has already been subject to difficult negotiations during the Austrian and Finnish terms of Presidency.
However, the citizens’ perspective does not demand security alone. We must similarly ensure the rights of our citizens.
In this connection I would like to mention the framework decision on data protection in police cooperation and cooperation in criminal matters. The goal of this framework decision is to strengthen the protection of personal data in the Union’s third pillar.
However, I doubt that we can even reach political agreement on the entire instrument, as at times it is quite difficult to reach agreement among the Member States.
Also the framework decision on minimum procedural rights sends a signal to our citizens that we are holding fast to their fundamental rights. However, Some Member States oppose having a binding instrument. Nonetheless, the negotiation to establish a binding instrument will go and hopefully such an instrument can be approved during German Presidency.
From the point of view of the rights of citizens one of the key initiatives of our Presidency is naturally the establishment of the Fundamental Rights Agency. The most difficult question has had to do with the competence of the Agency in the third pillar. The original proposal of the Commission that the Agency would have such a competence has not received the unanimous support of the Member States.
For this reason we have sought a compromise solution which would enable the Agency to operate in some way in the field of the third pillar after the establishment of the Agency.
On Monday Finland presented to the Council the Chairman's compromise proposal to solve the questions that have so far remained unresolved. The proposal was promoted by the Delegations and the agreement on the Agency was reached on Tuesday!
This means that the Agency will be operational early next year.
Finally I would like to mention the goals set by the Presidency itself. Finland as President of the Council had been mandated by the European Council to review the progress in justice and home affairs on the basis of the Hague Programme.
It was our goal to use this unique opportunity for a comprehensive review of the status of justice and home affairs and for the establishment of priorities in further development. In accordance with the mandate of the European Parliament it was our special task to examine the possibilities of improving decision-making in police cooperation and cooperation in criminal matters on the basis of the existing fundamental treaties.
The informal Council in Tampere was the key event in the review of the Hague Programme. On one hand the Presidency was much thanked for this but on another hand some criticized the meeting on the grounds that it was only discussion, that is no decision was taken.
However, in a democracy a decision is not made without there first being discussion. Indeed, informal Councils are designed for this particular purpose. At Tampere, we reached wide agreement among the Member States that we must improve decision-making in police cooperation and cooperation in criminal matters. We experienced the discussion in Tampere as true commitment of the Member States to further progress in justice and home affairs.
Unfortunately, the uncertainties related to the Constitutional Treaty have cast their shadow also over Tampere. The Member States were not able to find unanimity about the way forward. Many supported the application of the so-called passerelle clause in article 42 of the Treaty on the European Union, while some in turn opposed this and wanted to move forward primarily through the Constitutional Treaty.
Finland would prefer to see communitization of police cooperation and cooperation in criminal matters. We would also prefer to see an increase in majority decisions and in the use of co-decision, as well as a strengthening of the role of the Court of Justice. These goals can be achieved both through the passerelle clause and through the Constitutional Treaty. It is my view that these two ways of going forward are not in conflict with one another.
The Chairman's report on the progress made on the assessment of the Hague Programme was presented to the JHA Council on Monday December 4. The report was chiefly based on the discussions held at the informal meeting of ministers in Tampere. The Council adopted the conclusions based on its review of the work of the EU in this sector. The conclusions provide guidelines for developing an assessment system for the EU actions, strengthening the role of the European Court of Justice and updating the action plan for the Hague Programme.
[1] See paragraph 10 above.
[2] See document CEPEJ-GT-EVAL (2006) 8.
[3] See document CEPEJ-GT-EVAL (2006) 8 and CEPEJ (2006) 10
[4] Study and Analysis of Time Use Research Network.
[5] See document CEPEJ (2006) 9.
[6] See Conclusions to document CEPEJ (2006) 11.
* Exposé de M. Gabor SZEPLAKI-NAGY, membre de la CEPEJ au titre de la Hongrie
[7] These notes do not provide a full account of the statements made by CEPEJ members. The latter are asked to supply additional information, to be published on the CEPEJ website under “Country Profiles”.