Strasbourg, 20 November 2008


European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ)

Network of Pilot Courts

3rd plenary meeting - Catania, 24 October 2008 - Meeting report

Secretariat memorandum prepared by the Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs

1. The Network of Pilot courts of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) held its 3rd meeting in Catania (Italy) on 24 October 2008, at the invitation of the Court of Appeal.

2. The agenda and list of participants appear in Appendices I and IV to this report.

Opening of the meeting

3. The meeting was opened by the Director General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs, Philippe BOILLAT, who thanked the Court of Appeal of Catania and its President, Guido MARLETTA, and the Italian authorities (in particular the Ministry of Justice) for having invited the CEPEJ to organise the third plenary meeting of its Network of pilot courts in Catania. He highlighted the strong signal given by the CEPEJ in celebrating the European Day of Justice through a plenary meeting of courts, whose professionals were the main players for guaranteeing the quality and the efficiency of justice. He stated that the CEPEJ needed to rely on pilot courts to fulfil its main missions, remaining in line with the day-to day realities of the operation of courts. He recalled that the European Day of Justice was co-organised by the Council of Europe and the European Commission, both institutions sharing the same objectives and the same standards as regards the functioning of justice systems in Europe. His speech appears in Appendix II to this report.

4. The President of the Court of Appeal, Guido MARLETTA, and the Prosecutor General, Giovanni TINERA, welcomed the participants and insisted on the need to strengthen the efficiency of justice in their country.

The Report: «European Judicial systems- Edition 2008» : which conclusions?

5. The President of the CEPEJ, Fausto de SANTIS and the Chairman of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL, Jean-Paul JEAN, introduced the new CEPEJ’s report “European Judicial system – Edition 2008”. Mr JEAN insisted on how to use the report, in particular in comparing only those countries which can be clustered together according to their population, wealth, organisation of judicial system, etc1. He noted that the aim of this report was not to defend the efficiency of justice as a final goal, but as a way to promoting a system of values and an idea of justice as a public service for the sake of the European citizens.

6. Within the framework of the discussion with the pilot courts, the following issues were addressed in particular:

    § the CEPEJ could further study, on the basis of the information available in the report, the role of the lawyers in the judicial proceedings, and the correlation between their systems of remuneration and the volume of activities;

    § the reasoning of court decisions was highlighted as an essential elements for strengthening the efficiency and quality of judicial systems;

    § the need for ensuring the consistency and credibility of the efficiency and quality indicators was stressed, for instance the necessity to take into consideration the normative obligations (procedural law) while addressing the lengths of judicial proceedings.

Supporting the work of the CEPEJ as regards judicial time management

7. The Chair of the CEPEJ-SATURN, Jacques BÜHLER, indicated that there were high expectations form the pilot courts as regards the work of the SATURN Centre on judicial time management. He thanked the pilot courts which had widely contributed to the exploratory work in filling the questionnaire on common case categories and the duration of judicial timeframes in the courts.

8. He stressed that the excessive lengths of proceedings were not always linked to court activity but also to the legislative framework. He noted that common case categories used by the CEPEJ were not always in line with the statistics available in the various courts.

9. The scientific expert, Marco FABRI, introduced the results of the processing of the data provided for by 36 courts from 27 member states. These results appear on the CEPEJ’s web site:

10. The participants insisted on the need for having simple methods of calculation which can be applied in a similar way by all courts. They stressed the need for a culture of transparency on the duration of proceedings.

11. Mr BÜHLER indicated that SATURN Guidelines on judicial time management as well as models of statistics would be submitted to the CEPEJ for adoption before the end of the year. He stressed in particular that the SATURN Centre would recommend to the national judicial systems and the individual courts:

    § to organise their systems of statistics so that they are able to calculate at least three main indicators: clearance rate, disposition time and efficiency rate,

    § to give detailed information on the length of proceedings for four categories of cases: litigious divorces, dismissals, robberies and intentional homicides.

12. Some courts indicated that the issue of litigious divorces must be considered with care, as the legislation might impose specific timeframes before the judge can decide on the divorce, which automatically prolongs the timeframe.

13. The SATURN Centre should evolve progressively towards a European observatory of judicial timeframes. The pilot courts would have to continue to play a preeminent role in this framework, in particular in being able to give the information requested in paragraph 10 below as from 2009, so that they can become models for all courts in Europe.

Supporting the CEPEJ on a qualitative approach of justice

14. The Chair of the CEPEJ-GT-QUAL, François PAYCHERE, introduced the work already achieved by the CEPEJ on the quality of justice, in particular the Checklist for the promotion of quality in the judiciary and courts2. He stressed that the quality indicators had to be defined with the courts themselves, as justice cannot be compared to other companies delivering services to the population. Mr PAYCHERE indicated that the CEPEJ had not addressed in details the issue of the quality of judicial decisions, this being addressed by the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE).

15. The pilot courts were invited to make use of the Checklist and to contribute to its dissemination among the judicial bodies throughout the country and, if possible, in ensuring or facilitating the translation of this document. The need for a courts’ ownership on the work of the CEPEJ was underlined.

16. Apart from the Checklist, which highlights the main elements which are part of the quality of justice, according to the CEPEJ, the CEPEJ-GT-QUAL was working on the following issues:

    § a survey on quality systems in the CoE’s member states,

    § a reflection on the contractualisation of some judicial proceedings,

    § a manual on satisfaction surveys carried out both at central and at court levels, aimed at the professionals of justice and the court users.

17. As regards the contractualisation of judicial proceedings, the scientific expert, Julien LHUILLIER, indicated that the pilot courts would be sent a questionnaire in spring 2009 in order to assess the existing procedures and the expectations of the professionals of justice. Pilot courts were invited both to fill the questionnaire and to indicate specific bodies in their countries which could usefully fill it too.

The future of the co-operation between the CEPEJ and the Pilot courts

18. Elsa GARCIA MALTRAS de BLAS, members of the CEPEJ’s Bureau, developed some guidelines to improve the cooperation between the CEPEJ and the Network as well as the visibility of the work carried out by the pilot courts. She stressed in particular the role of the pilot courts in the dissemination of the CEPEJ’s measures and tools and possibly in contributing to the translations of the relevant CEPEJ’s documents.

19. Ivana BORZOVA, members of the CEPEJ’s Bureau, underlined the working priorities for the CEPEJ in the coming months and invited the pilot courts to be fully involved in the organisation of the European Day of Justice in their country and to encourage judicial bodies to participate in the European Prize: “Crystal Scales of Justice”.

20. John STACEY, Vice-President of the CEPEJ, invited the representatives of the pilot courts to work in groups to answer the various questions. The following discussion enabled to draw some of conclusions as regards:

    § the dissemination of the CEPEJ’s documents by the pilot courts to other courts in the country, provided that they indicate to the Secretariat the number of documents they need;

    § the effective use of the internet Web site and in particular the discussion Forum, which is due to be simplified ;

    § the regular consultation of the pilot courts between two plenary meetings.


21. The representatives of the pilot courts agreed on the operational conclusions which appear in appendix III and committed to take them into account for further cooperation with the CEPEJ.


22. The official ceremony for awarding the EC – Coe jointly organised European Prize: “the Crystal Scales of Justice” took place at the end of the plenary meeting of the pilot courts.

23. In a session chaired by Guido MARLETTA, President of the Court of Appeal of Catania, high level representatives of the main Italian and Sicilian judicial bodies underlined their priorities for improving the functioning of the national, regional and local judicial systems.

24. The “Crystal Scales of Justice” were awarded in a ceremony co-chaired by Address by Salla SAASTAMOINEN, Head of the Civil Justice Unit of the European Commission and Philippe BOILLAT, Director General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs of the Council of Europe and honored by the presence of Angelino ALFANO, Minister of Justice of Italy. The members of the Jury of the competition attended the ceremony.

25. The Prize was awarded to ''Her Majesty’s Courts Service'' of the United Kingdom for the initiative: the Small Claims Mediation Service, which offers litigants a quick, simple and free mediation for small claims. Three other projects received a special mention: Paris Bar Association (France): Bus "Barreau de Paris Solidarité"; Court of Milan (Italy): the computerised civil lawsuits office; the Ministry of Justice of Turkey: National Judiciary Informatics System (UYAP).


26. At the initiative of the Court of Appeal of Catania, a specific meeting of the second instance pilot courts took place on 25 October on the “Management of the daily work within courts of 2nd instance”. The session was opened by Guido MARLETTA and Philippe BOILLAT, and chaired by Jean-Paul JEAN.

27. The participants underlined that second instance courts experience specific problems which might justify specific meetings.

28. Some participants noted that 95 % of the time of the chairs of the court of appeal are spent in non judicial activities (management of the court and of the court’s jurisdiction), although they are appointed above all for their judicial skills and not for the management capacities. They noted that the courts have two main tasks: the management of the second instance cases and the management of the judicial policy among the courts within the jurisdiction.

29. The following issues were addressed in particular:

    § the way of limiting appeals:

      - the possibility for the second instance courts to selection the cases, based both on the facts and on the law;

      - the compatibility of the role of the first instance court in authorizing an appeal and Article 6 ECHR;

    § time management at second instance level:

      - the development of the proceedings for urgent matters in second instance, which oblige the second instance courts to act with the pressure of time;

      - the possibility to organise targeted contracts at second instance level;

      - should the first instance court decision be enforceable or suspended before the second instance court renders its decision?

      - the trend to have a written procedure in second instance;

      - the videotaping of first instance hearings;

    § the relationships between first instance courts and second instance courts:

      - the autonomy of first instance courts and the hierarchical position of the second instance courts

      - the hierarchy of second instance courts ion first instance courts vis-à-vis high councils for the judiciary;

      - the role of ICT in the relationships between first and second instance courts;

    § the organisation of first instance courts:

      - are second instance courts concerned by the re-organisation of the judicial maps?

      - how to specialize second instance courts?

      - The specialisation of lawyers before second instance courts;

    § the role of judicial free professions (lawyers, notaries, accountants) vis-à-vis second instance courts.

30. The Court of Appeal of Catania proposed to set up in Catania, with the support of all the local and regional judicial bodies and the University of Catania, a specific observatory of second instance courts, under the auspices of the CEPEJ. The second instance pilot courts could be closely involved in the reflection of this structure.

31. The participants indicated that no artificial distinction should be made between first instance and second instance courts, and therefore that the present network, composed roughly of two third of first instance courts and one third of second instance courts offered a proper balance. However, considering the number of specific issues concerning second instance courts, a specific reflection could be organised within the framework of the Network.

32. The participants invited the Court of Appeal of Catania to forward a detailed proposal that could be studied by the CEPEJ, in order to address these specific issues within a proper framework. The participants encouraged the CEPEJ to consider the generous offer of the Court of Appeal and the University of Catania to host regular meetings around such issues and to play a specific role in this field.

Appendix I


3rd Plenary Meeting of the CEPEJ Network of the Pilot Courts

« How to contribute in setting up a quicker justice and a justice of quality? »

Introduction - The Report : « European Judicial systems- Edition 2008 » : which conclusions?

Chairperson : Fausto de Santis (Italy), President of the CEPEJ

Round table and discussion on the following questions:

1. How can the national Courts use the Report ?

2. What are the limits of such a Report ?

3. What are the possible improvements ?

Key note speaker: Jean-Paul Jean (France), Chair of the Working Group on the Evaluation of Judicial Systems (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL)

Part I - Supporting the works of the CEPEJ as regards judicial time management

Chairperson : Jacques Bühler (Switzerland), Chair of the Steering Group of the SATURN Centre

Round table and discussion with the representatives of the Pilot courts about following questions :

1. In concrete terms, how are you using the Checklist of the CEPEJ concerning time management?

2. What is the relevance of the « questionnaire on Common case categories, judicial timeframes and delays » for moving towards an observatory of judicial timeframes in Europe ? Why did only a few States reply to it?

Key note speaker: Marco FABRI, Scientific expert to the Steering Group of the SATURN Centre

Part II - Supporting the CEPEJ on a qualitative approach of justice

Chairperson : François Paychère (Switzerland), Chair of the CEPEJ-GT-QUAL

Round table and discussion with the representatives of the Pilot courts on the following questions:

1. Will you use the checklist for the promotion of the quality of justice and courts?

2. Which topics are to be further discussed?

3. What are the limits of such an instrument?

Key note speaker: John Stacey (United Kingdom), Vice-President of the CEPEJ

Part III - The future of the co-operation between the CEPEJ and the Pilot courts

Chairperson: John Stacey (United Kingdom), Vice-President of the CEPEJ

How to improve the efficiency of the network of the Pilot courts?

Key note speaker: Elsa Garcia Maltras de Blas (Spain), member of the Bureau of the CEPEJ

The future working programme (contractual relation between judges and users; the means to measure the satisfaction of the users, etc.)

Key note speaker: Ivana Borzova (Czech Republic), member of the Bureau of the CEPEJ

Discussion with the representatives of the Pilot courts aiming at elaborating the future working programme

Official Ceremony of the European Day of Civil Justice

« Crystal Scales of Justice » Award

Official Ceremony in the presence of personalities

Chairperson : Guido Marletta, President of the Appeal Court of Catania

«Crystal Scales of Justice » Award

Chairpersons : Salla Saastamoinen, European Commission and Fausto de Santis, CEPEJ

Cocktail hosted by the European Commission in the Hall of the Palace of Congress in the presence of personalities

Stands of the European Commission, the Council of Europe and other judicial bodies

Official diner in Palais Biscari

meeeting of the Network of the Second Instance Pilot Courts

« Management of the daily work within courts of 2nd instance »

Chairperson: Jean-Paul JEAN (France), Chair of the Working Group on the Evaluation of Judicial Systems (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL)

Introduction by Mr Philippe BOILLAT, Director General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs, Council of Europe

Round table and discussion on the following questions:

Question n°1 : What are the actual principal difficulties encountered in the daily work of courts (organisation, management, delays, staff, budget, etc.)?

Question n°2 : What are the particularities of the daily work inside courts of second instance compared to courts of first instance ?

Question n°3 : What are the spheres allowing an improvement on which the CEPEJ should take an interest in?

Question n°4 : Do you think that more management techniques should be brought inside the courts?

Question n°5 : Is it relevant to consider the creation of a tool aiming to improve their daily work and specific for courts of second instance?

Question n°6 : What can be the prospects/future working programme/added value of a possible specific network of pilot courts of second instance?


Guido MARLETTA, President of the Appeal Court of Catania

Fausto DE SANTIS (Italy), President of the CEPEJ

Eberhard DESCH, Former President of the CEPEJ

Jean-Paul JEAN (France), Chair of the Working Group on the Evaluation of Judicial Systems (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL)

Appendix II

3ème réunion plénière du Réseau des tribunaux référents de la CEPEJ

Catane, 24 octobre 2008, 9h00

Intervention d’ouverture de M. Philippe BOILLAT,

Directeur général des droits de l’Homme et des affaires juridiques

Conseil de l’Europe

Monsieur le Président de la Cour d’Appel

Monsieur le Président de la CEPEJ,

Mesdames et Messieurs les représentants des tribunaux-référents de la CEPEJ, membres et experts de la CEPEJ,

Mesdames et Messieurs,

C’est pour moi un honneur et un grand plaisir d’être parmi vous aujourd’hui pour cette 3ème réunion plénière du Réseau des tribunaux référents de la CEPEJ, organisée cette année dans le cadre de la 6ème Journée européenne de la justice civile, initiée conjointement par la Commission européenne et par le Conseil de l’Europe.

Permettez-moi tout d’abord de remercier vivement le Président de la Cour d’Appel de Catane, Monsieur Guido MARLETTA, d’avoir invité votre Réseau à se réunir dans ce lieu aussi agréable que propice à des échanges et à un travail fructueux. Permettez-moi également, Monsieur Marletta, de me réjouir de l’adhésion de la Cour d’Appel de Catane au Réseau des tribunaux référents de la CEPEJ.

Un grand merci aussi aux autorités italiennes, et en particulier au Ministère de la justice, pour son soutien dans l’organisation de cette journée.

Célébrer l’événement-phare de la Journée européenne de la justice à travers une réunion de représentants de tribunaux de toute l’Europe est un symbole fort. Ceci démontre que les professionnels de la justice sont au cœur du dispositif lorsque l’on parle d’efficacité de la justice et sont les premiers garants de la qualité du service public de la justice, offert aux citoyens européens.

Vous qui êtes quotidiennement au contact des réalités du terrain, vous qui avez pour mission de veiller à la bonne application de la loi dans des situations concrètes, vous à qui incombe la difficile tâche de gérer le bon fonctionnement des tribunaux, cette Journée européenne est avant tout la vôtre. Elle doit permettre aux citoyens de mieux comprendre votre mission et les conditions dans lesquelles vous êtes appelés à la remplir.

C’est précisément pour rester en phase avec la réalité du terrain que la CEPEJ a créé un réseau de tribunaux-référents : pour ancrer les mesures qu’elle propose et les outils qu’elle développe dans le fonctionnement au jour le jour de la justice.

Lors de la célébration du 10ème anniversaire de la CEPEJ en décembre dernier, les conclusions d’un colloque réunissant le monde judiciaire européen avaient notamment mis en évidence les éléments suivants :

- la CEPEJ doit rester un forum privilégié d'échange d'expériences et de bonnes pratiques dans le domaine de la justice, voire développer plus avant cette fonction essentielle ;

- la CEPEJ devrait agir comme une instance de veille et d'alerte précoce pour identifier les lacunes structurelles des systèmes judiciaires et permettre d'anticiper de nouvelles difficultés. Elle agirait ainsi comme un "aide de camp" de la Cour européenne des droits de l'Homme ;

- il conviendra enfin de conforter la CEPEJ dans son rôle de conseil pour les Etats membres, qui doivent être incités à demander la coopération ciblée de la Commission pour des questions spécifiques relatives aux réformes des systèmes judiciaires nationaux.

Or, pour mener à bien toutes ces missions, la CEPEJ a besoin de vous. Elle a besoin de vous pour obtenir les informations pertinentes en provenance des tribunaux, pour que vous commentiez les travaux qu’elle entreprend, pour que vous testiez, in vivo, l’adéquation de ses travaux avec les besoins des professionnels et les attentes des justiciables.

Soyez vivement remerciés pour le temps que vous consacrez et l’intérêt que vous portez aux travaux de notre Commission pour l’efficacité de la justice. Je ne peux que vous encourager à poursuivre cette excellent coopération et à répondre aussi souvent que possible aux sollicitations de la CEPEJ.

Nous sommes bien conscients que vous avez chaque jour de nombreuses priorités à prendre en charge, et que votre collaboration avec la CEPEJ vient alourdir votre charge de travail, ce qui n’en rend votre appartenance à ce réseau que plus méritoire.

Mesdames et Messieurs,

Je me réjouis que cette réunion, organisée à l’occasion de la Journée européenne de la justice civile, soit placée sous le double patronage du Conseil de l’Europe et de la Commission européenne. En matière de justice, les institutions européennes ne parlent que d’une seule voix, à partir de normes et de standards communs, pour atteindre des objectifs partagés : améliorer le fonctionnement de systèmes judiciaires indépendants, efficaces et de qualité. Ces objectifs sont inscrits dans le Memorandum d’accord signé entre le Conseil de l’Europe et l’Union européenne et l’organisation de cette journée commune en est une expression concrète très heureuse.

Nous remettrons ce soir, en présence du Ministre italien de la Justice, Monsieur Angelino ALFANO, la « Balance de cristal », qui récompense une initiative originale permettant d’améliorer la qualité du service public de la justice.

Nous aurons l’occasion d’y revenir tout à l’heure, mais je voudrais là aussi souligner que ceci s’inscrit pleinement dans une même démarche qui vise à réfléchir ensemble et trouver ensemble des solutions, à partir de l’expérience du terrain, pour que notamment l’Article 6 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme soit toujours mieux respecté dans les 47 Etats membres du Conseil de l’Europe.

Cette 3ème réunion plénière des tribunaux-référents de la CEPEJ est l’aboutissement d’une année de travail passée et le lancement d’une nouvelle année de coopération. Nous n’aurons le temps que d’échanger nos vues sur les principaux thèmes de travail actuels de la CEPEJ ; ces échanges sont néanmoins essentiels pour que nous puissions dans les semaines et les mois à venir fournir ensemble un travail efficace et de qualité au service des systèmes de justice en Europe.

C’est pourquoi je vous souhaite un excellent travail avec les membres et experts de la CEPEJ qui nous ont fait l’amitié d’être avec nous aujourd’hui, et que je tiens à féliciter pour la pertinence des travaux de ces derniers mois, dont vous aller débattre sans plus attendre.

Je vous remercie pour votre attention.

Appendix III


The members of the CEPEJ Network of Pilot courts met in Catania (Italy) for their third plenary meeting on 24 October 2008. They agreed on the following points regarding the operational cooperation with the CEPEJ.


as regards the evaluation of judicial systems

    § to conduct an in-depth study on the role of lawyers in judicial proceedings, on the basis of the information of its 2006 – 2008 evaluation cycle;

as regards the regular information on its work

    § to pursue and improve the regular dissemination of information on the measures and tools that it designs, in particular through the CEPEJ Newsletter which should be sent to all representatives of the pilot courts;

    § to simplify the use of the web site discussion forum to encourage further exchanges between pilot courts through this communication tool;

    § to encourage the CEPEJ’s members to meet regularly with the representatives of the pilot courts to discuss the implementation of the CEPEJ’s activity programme and to collect their comments and suggestions;


as regards judicial time management

    § to organise the systems of statistics of the court so that a relevant information can be given as from 2009 (and possibly 2008) on the length of proceedings regarding at least the following case categories: litigious divorces, dismissals, robberies and international homicides, as defined in the explanatory note to the CEPEJ’s evaluation scheme (under question 92) – and to indicate the necessary comments enabling to sharpen these definitions if necessary;

    § to encourage the relevant national authorities to organise the general system of statistics so that they are able to give appropriate information on the length of proceedings for these four case categories;

    § to trial within the court, as from 2009, the models of statistics and the calculation methods and ratios (clearance rate, disposition time and efficiency indicator) proposed in the SATURN guidelines on judicial time management, so that they can progressively become European models applicable in all European courts;

as regards the quality of justice

    § to trial within the court, in 2009, the CEPEJ’s “Checklist for promoting the quality of justice and the courts” and to forward the results of this experience to the Secretariat of the CEPEJ through a specific questionnaire which will be sent to the Network’s members;

    § to fulfil the specific questionnaire on the contractualisation of judicial proceedings which will be sent to the Network’s members before the first half of 2009 and to indicate to the CEPEJ’s Secretariat the national and other relevant bodies which could usefully answer to this questionnaire;

as regards the participation to the regular activities of the CEPEJ

    § to organise specific events within their court to celebrate the European Day of Justice (25 October) and to inform the Secretariat of these initiatives, to be posted on the CEPEJ Web site;

    § to participate, where appropriate, in the European Prize of innovative practices contributing to the quality of justice; "The Crystal Scales of Justice" (in civil or/and in criminal matters) or/and to encourage other courts to do so;

as regards the dissemination of the information on CEPEJ’s activities

    § to organise a regular information on the CEPEJ’s activities for the judicial and non judicial within the court, including in inviting on a regular basis the national member of the CEPEJ to visit the court;

    § to disseminate the information on the CEPEJ’s work and the documents designed by the CEPEJ among other courts in their countries;

    § to consult regularly the CEPEJ web site and to participate actively in the discussion forum;

    § to insert into the court’s web site, where appropriate, a hyperlink to the CEPEJ’s web site;

    § to indicate to the Secretariat of the CEPEJ mailing lists so that relevant information on the work of the CEPEJ can be sent directly to the stakeholders;

    § to indicate to the Secretariat of the CEPEJ any changes in the details of the court and of the court’s representatives so that the information can be properly sent by the Secretariat to the network’s members.

Appendix IV





Jean-Louis VUILLEMIN, Président de la Haute Cour de Justice, ANDORRA LA VELLA


Stepan MIKAELYAN, Juge de Première Instance, Tribunal de Malatia-Sebastia, MALATIA SEBASTIA


Walter ENGELBERGER, Judge and Head of the District Court, LINZ


Ramin GURBANOV, Senior Adviser, Department of Organisation and Analysis, Ministry of Justice, BAKU

Aladdin JAFAROV, President of Baku City Nasimi District Court, Chairman of the Association of City Court Judges, Member of the Judicial-Legal Council, BAKU

Tofig PASHAYEV, President of the Court, Khatai District court of Baku City, BAKU


Katica JOZAK-MAđAR, Predsjednica Kantonalnog suda, Court of Novi Travnik, NOVI TRAVNIK

CROATIA/CROATIE : Apolosiged / Excusée


Takis ELIADES, Member of the Supreme Court, LIMASSOL


Simona BRADÁČOVÁ, Judge, District Court of Prague 1, PRAGUE


Helle FLØYTSTRUP, Judge, District Court, KOLDING

Margit LAUB, Court President, District Court, ESBJERG


Villem LAPIMAA, Judge and President, Administrative Court, TALLINN


Hannamaija FALCK, Judge, Administrative Manager, Regional Administrative Court, TURKU

Tapio KATAJAMAKI, District Court Judge, District Court, TURKU

Ritva SUPPONEN, Judge, Court of Appeal, ROVANIEMI


Chantal BUSSIERE, Présidente, Tribunal de Grande Instance, MARSEILLE

Frédéric FEVRE, Procureur de la République, Tribunal de Grande Instance, POITIERS


Lasha KALANDADZE, Deputy Chairman of Appeal Court, Chairman of Civil Law Chamber, Member of the High Council of Justice, TBILISI


Ulrich GROSS, Richter am Oberlandesgericht, Präsidialrichter und Organisationsreferent - Oberlandesgericht, STUTTGART


Robert Szarvas, Judge, Municipal Court, VESZPREM

IRELAND/IRLANDE : Apologised / Excusée


Guido MARLETTA, President of the Appeal Court, CATANIA

Giacomo OBERTO, Magistrat, Tribunal de Grande Instance, TURIN


Dzintra BALTA, Chief Judge, Central District Court, RIGA

Buivide SKAIDRITE, Judge, Regional Court, RIGA


Zita SMIRNOVIENE, Chief judge, Regional Administrative Court, VILNIUS


Victor MICU, Vice-President, Tribunal of the Riscani Sector, CHISINAU


Bruno NARDI, Assistant judiciaire, Tribunal de Première Instance, MONACO


Otto NIJHUIS, Judge, Manager Administration, District Court, ARNHEM


Dag BRATHOLE, Court of Appeal of Frostating, Frostating lagmannsrett, TRONDHEIM


Agnieszka GRZYBCZAK-STACHYRA, Court of First Instance, WARSAW

Emil SZCZEPANIK, Court of First Instance, WARSAW, Apologised/ Excusé

ROMANIA/ROUMANIE : Apologised / Excusée


Mitja KOZAR, District court (Okrožno sodišče v Mariboru), MARIBOR

Samo TUREL, Secretary, District Court, NOVA GORICA


Maria Aranzazu ALAMEDA LÓPEZ, Member of Administrative Staff, Commercial Court Nr. 3, BARCELONA


Britt BJÖRNEKE, Judge, The Magistrate Court of Huddinge, HUDDINGE


Philippe THÉLIN, Juge, Tribunal administratif, GENEVE


Michelle BAYLEY, Trial Centre Manager, Central London Civil Justice Centre, LONDON




Ivana BORZOVÁ, Head of the Department of Civil Supervision, Ministry of Justice, Prague, CZECH REPUBLIC

Fausto DE SANTIS, Directeur Général au sein du Bureau de l’organisation judiciaire, Ministère de la Justice, Rome, ITALIE (President of the CEPEJ / Président de la CEPEJ)

Elsa GARCÍA-MALTRÁS DE BLAS, European Judicial Training Network (EJTN), Bruxelles, Membre de la CEPEJ au tire de l’ESPAGNE

John STACEY, Head of Civil & Family Rules and Jurisdiction Branch, LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM (Vice-Président of the CEPEJ / Vice-Président de la CEPEJ)


Jacques BÜHLER, Secrétaire Général suppléant, Tribunal fédéral suisse, LAUSANNE, SUISSE

Chair of the Steering Group of the SATURN Centre for Judicial Time Management / Président du Groupe de Pilotage du Centre SATURN pour la gestion du temps judiciaire (CEPEJ-SATURN)

Jean-Paul JEAN, Avocat général près la Cour d’Appel de Paris, Professeur associé à l’Université de Poitiers, FRANCE

Chair of the Working Group on Evaluation of Judicial Systems (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL) / Président du Groupe de travail sur l’évaluation des systèmes judiciaires (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL)

François PAYCHÈRE, Juge à la Cour de justice, Genève, SUISSE

Chair of the Working Groupe on Quality of Justice (CEPEJ-GT-QUAL) / Président du Groupe de travail sur la qualité de la justice (CEPEJ-GT-QUAL)

Gaby EMAN, Advisor, Directorate General for the Administration of Justice and Law Enforcement, Instruments Department, Ministry of Justice, THE NETHERLANDS

Member of the Steering Group of the SATURN Centre for Judicial Time Management / Membre du Groupe de Pilotage du Centre SATURN pour la gestion du temps judiciaire (CEPEJ-SATURN)


Marco FABRI, Research Institute on Judicial Systems, National Research Council, BOLOGNA, ITALY

Julien LHUILLIER, Chercheur, Institut de criminologie et de droit pénal, Ecole des Science scriminelles, Université de Lausanne, SUISSE



Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs - Justice Division /

Direction Générale des droits de l’Homme et des affaires juridiques - Divison de la Justice

Fax: +33 3 88 41 37 43


Philippe BOILLAT, Director General / Directeur Général

Stéphane LEYENBERGER, Secretary of the CEPEJ / Secrétaire de la CEPEJ

Muriel DECOT, Co-Secretary of the CEPEJ / Co-secrétaire de la CEPEJ

Sandrine MAROLLEAU, Communication

Elisabeth HEURTEBISE, Assistante

Interpreters / Interprètes

Caroline CURTA

Chantalle FAYOLLE

1 The full report, the national answers to the evaluation scheme as well as Mr Jeans presentation appear on the CEPEJ’s web site :

2 CEPEJ(2008)2. See