Strasbourg, 9 December 2016
CEPEJ(2016)23
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
IMPACT OF THE 2016 EDITION OF THE CEPEJ REPORT :
« EUROPEAN JUDICIAL SYSTEMS – EFFICIENCY AND QUALITY OF JUSTICE »
as introduced by the CEPEJ members at the 28th CEPEJ plenary meeting (6-7 December, 2016)
Albania: the number of district courts should be reduced from 22 to 12.
Azerbaijan: the report was disseminated among judges. The thematic report rose great interest in Azerbaijan. From 1 January 2017, the Economic Courts will implement the recording system.
Bosnia and Herzegovina: the report was discussed among the members of the High Council of the Judiciary. Bosnia and Herzegovina is still expecting the media response to the report but it can be noted that the situation in the judicial field is of public interest.
Bulgaria: the Supreme Judicial Council was especially interested by the report but the translation was not yet finalised. The Bulgarian version of the report should be delivered soon.
Cyprus: the report was presented to the President of the Republic who is also a lawyer. It was also presented to the law committee of the Parliament. The Vice-President of this committee published the overview of the report in the newspaper. It was also given to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
It is hoped that the government will increase the budget of the judiciary.
Czech Republic: the report was presented to the judicial network of judges. It has been highlighted the great interest for the evaluation report of the Supreme Court and the Chamber of notaries.
France: the report has been widely disseminated, including among politicians. This dissemination is of great influence. The CEPEJ Secretariat was heard on the basis of the evaluation report by the Special Rapporteur of the National Assembly in view of the preparation for the 2017 budget of the judicial system. Similarly, the Chair of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL was heard by the Chair of the Senate Law Committee and its Commission on Justice Reforms.
Georgia: after the publication of the report, on November 2016, the Superior Council organised a meeting to which all institutions involved in the preparation of the evaluation report were invited. Concrete measures were presented to improve the functioning and to coordinate the activities in the preparation of the next report.
The results of the report will also be presented at the annual conference of judges in December 2016. The CEPEJ dynamic database (CEPEJ-STAT) will be presented at this conference. The Secretariat is invited to present this tool to Georgian judges.
The CEPEJ results help having a picture of the situation inside and outside the country. They have been used for drafting the action plan of the Strategy Reform Plan adopted by many bodies (Ministry of Justice, High Judicial Council, Ministry of Interior, Parliament, the Office of the Public Defender, the Legal Aid Centre, the Bar Association…). It should be implemented over the period 2016-2020.
Germany: there were few responses from the media regarding the report. This is mainly due to the fact that the report has not been translated.
Greece: the most productive way to disseminate the report is to organise meetings with a limited number of participants such as judges (especially the presidents of courts) and lawyers. It was noted that the media commonly use pictures with bad indicators. Therefore, it is important to be careful in the information transmitted (especially if a study regarding the relations media-judicial systems is planned to be prepared). It was suggested creating guidelines on the way to present data in the press. The public trust is very sensitive to this information, especially in a period of economic crisis.
Hungary: the report was widely disseminated to the decision-making bodies, to the institutions having provided the data and to the press. There were few responses from the press.
Iceland: the report was of great interest, especially for the Judicial Council which uses the report. The Ministry of Interior should take more notice of the report.
Ireland: there was an open public discussion between the Judiciary and the Ministry of Justice concerning the cost for establishing the Judicial Council. The discussion was underpinned by the material made available by the CEPEJ. The Irish member had the opportunity to present the report to senior court managers.
Italy: the media coverage was moderate, in spite of several articles in main newspapers. An important event was organised with the President of the High Judicial Council and the President of the Supreme Court. The Italian member was asked to participate actively to make benchmarking. Restricted panels are considered to be useful to highlight specific elements.
Latvia: the media coverage of the report focused on the most important issues (e.g.: number of courts, judges' salaries, number of judges, training, timeframes, etc.). The Latvian situation is compared to situations in other countries and not only neighbouring countries. A seminar related to timeframes was held. The report was also made available in the Supreme Court website.
Lithuania: information regarding the report was provided to the Ministry of Justice and all authorities concerned. The new Judicial Council was elected in November. Some issues were discussed with the President of the State and the President of the Judicial Council. The information about the content of the report was prepared for the media which focused on the length of proceedings especially regarding criminal cases. The recent election at the Parliament did not allow the latter to pay special attention to the report.
Luxembourg: information was published on the website of the judicial administration. The report is mainly read by the judiciary. The report is used to note the achievements but not to discuss the issues that could be raised. It would be a huge progress to use the report as a way of improvement.
Malta: the report was disseminated to stakeholders (judges, ministers, lawyers…). It is planned to organise a meeting about database. The report and the CEPEJ dynamic database will be presented together. Due to the political situation (the presidential elections), there were no articles published in Malta - after the elections, media will perhaps be more interested in publishing articles about the report.
Monaco: the report raises the interest of judicial authorities and legal professions. Since July 2016, a text has been issued and the heads of courts and the justice administration will gather on December 12. It is planned to include at this meeting the CEPEJ reports, 2014 Edition (2012 data) and 2016 Edition (2014 data).
The media coverage is expected by mid-December. It is very important, especially for the Directorate of Judicial Services, which represents a driving force behind proposals for the budget allocated to justice. Important topics are the workload of prosecutors and the computerisation of justice.
There is an on-going discussion with the Ministry of Finance to isolate the budget of courts and public prosecution services.
The media coverage is also important for:
- trade unions of judges (especially regarding possible budget increases) and
- the High Council of the Judiciary (the report is a way to make suggestions for thought and action).
Montenegro: the Ministry of Justice is taken a great interest in the report. It has been published on their website and it informed the institutions concerned. The translation issue has to be taken into account. It is expensive and time consuming but it has been ensured that the best efforts would be taken to achieve the translation.
The dynamic database, CEPEJ-STAT, is used for important strategic decisions and it represents an important tool to compare Montenegro with other countries.
Netherlands: the Judicial Council published the report on their website. The EU Justice Scoreboard draws more attention than the CEPEJ report.
Portugal: the report was published on the Ministry of Justice website and also on the Facebook page. There was a press release from the Ministry of Justice and a positive feedback concerning the IT report, which is one of the priorities of the government.
Romania: the report was published on the Ministry of Justice website in order to make it visible to all justice stakeholders. As regards the translation, the necessary resources are in process of identification.
To date, there has been no particular response to the report but the most important is that data were taken into account immediately after the publication: this is considered as essential for proposals as regards amendments on judicial issues.
At the present time, laws are proposed regarding the status of judges and the report is an important tool to guide the judicial authorities.
Russian Federation: the report was published among the Court statistics. Data was used for answering the questions by the press and the Parliament. The main report was of no great interest for the media. However the thematic report on IT in courts has been of particular interest for the judicial system.
Serbia: the Ministry of Justice, in cooperation with the Council of Europe, organised an event for the presentation of the report and the dynamic database CEPEJ-STAT on 23 November (on the same day of the adoption of the Law on domestic violence and the Criminal Code). There were over 50 participants (representatives of judiciary, NGOs…). Everyone was extremely enthusiastic. The dynamic database, CEPEJ-STAT has been recognised as being an excellent tool and very useful. The conclusions of the report on judicial efficiency have been taken into account in order to decrease backlogs.
Slovak Republic: the Ministry of Justice and the Judicial Council are working on a new way to assess judges.
The EU Justice Scoreboard is of greatest interest for media compared to the CEPEJ report.
Spain: the thematic most covered by the press was the number of judges. Spain has a lower number of judges compared to other countries (judicial counsellors are more numerous than judges).
Switzerland: there were little covering of the report by the media. However, this autumn, a session was organised with all secretaries-general of all Cantonal Appeal Courts and a session with all presidents of the Cantonal Supreme Courts. During these sessions the statistics of the Swiss judicial system were presented.
“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”: the former President of the Macedonian Academy of Science and Arts was contacted to organise a conference related to efficiency in the judiciary. A wide participation was observed (the president of the Supreme Court, notaries, members of the Academy of Science and Arts who are dealing with legal issues, etc.). It was requested to the Academy of Science and Arts to publish all the topics related to the report.
Turkey: the checking of the translation is ongoing. The report will then be sent to the Turkish libraries, the Superior Court, the High Council of Judges, the public prosecutor services. The report was submitted to the Ministry of Justice and it will be presented on the website of the Ministry of Justice.
Information notes will be given to the Press Agency.
Ukraine: the report was translated and it has received great responses. It was transmitted for websites such as the one of the Institution of Statistics.
United-Kingdom: the report was not of great interest for the media.