Strasbourg, 13 October 2011

CEPEJ-SATURN(2011)5Rev2

EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICENCY OF JUSTICE

(CEPEJ)

Steering Group of the SATURN Centre for judicial time management
(CEPEJ-SATURN)

10th meeting

Strasbourg, 21 and 23 September 2011

A STRATEGIC PLAN FOR THE SATURN CENTRE

Table of contents

Introduction 2
1. Terms of reference and available resources 3
2. Overall objectives 5
3. Strategic goals 5
4. Operational goals – concrete actions and projects (Action Plan) 6

Introduction

    1. The strategic plan seeks to identify the essential strengths and strategic goals to achieve the overall objectives of the SATURN Centre. Therefore the strategic plan goes beyond the operational objectives and annual planning of the Centre. It is a future-oriented vision which shall be achieved over a long period.

    2. The strategic plan embodies the strategic goals and is complemented by operational goals and an action plan. The action plan describes the concrete actions and the projects for achieving the strategic and operational goals.

    3. It shall take into account the following references

    § Resolution Res(2002)12, adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 18 September 2002 establishing the European Commission for the efficiency of justice (CEPEJ)

    § CEPEJ Medium-Term Activity Programme of 10 December 2009 (CEPEJ(2009)4)

    § CEPEJ Activity Programme 2011 and its appendix II containing the terms of reference of the Steering Group of the Centre for judicial time management (SATURN Centre) (CEPEJ(2010)9)

    § Framework Programme: "A new objective for judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe" (CEPEJ(2004)19Rev2)

    § Resolution No. 1 of the 30th Council of Europe Conference of Ministers of Justice (Istanbul, 24-26 November 2010).

    4. It shall in particular contribute to the promotion and the implementation of the SATURN tool box designed by the SATURN Centre:

    The SATURN toolbox

§ The "Time Management Checklist" (CEPEJ(2005)12Rev), adopted in 2005. It is a tool for internal use of its stakeholders whose purpose is to help justice systems to collect appropriate information and analyze relevant aspects of the duration of judicial proceedings with a view to reduce undue delays, ensure effectiveness of the proceedings and provide necessary transparency and foreseeability to the users of the justice systems.

§ The Study: "Time management of justice systems: a Northern Europe study" (CEPEJ Studies No. 2, 2006), which contains a broad collection of time management strategies described in governmental reports in Northern European states. Most of the tools address policy makers and administrators of justice systems, but several of them also address the courts. Part II contains tools developed for time management in criminal cases at the police and prosecution, but most of them might be adoptable by the courts.

§ The report "Length of court proceedings in the member states of the Council of Europe based on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights", by Martine Calvez (CEPEJ Studies No. 3, 2006). It analyses the major considerations behind the “reasonable time” standard (Article 6 ECHR article) and spells out the deadlines that can be extracted from the judgments of the European Courts of Human Rights.

§ The "Compendium of “best practices” on time management of judicial proceedings" (CEPEJ(2006)13), adopted in 2006. In addition to the courts, the compendium also contains “best practices” for policy makers and administrative authorities in the judicial systems.

§ The "SATURN Guidelines for judicial time management" (CEPEJ(2008)8Rev), adopted in 2008.They contain measures both for the courts and for policy makers and administrative authorities. The Guidelines include an essential appendix on time management statistics – European uniform guidelines for monitoring of judicial timeframes (EUGMONT).

1. Terms of reference and available resources

    5. The Steering Group of the SATURN1 Centre for judicial time management is a working group of the European Commission for the efficiency of justice (CEPEJ).

    6. The SATURN Centre received general terms of reference as a Centre for judicial time management to gather the information necessary for achieving a sufficiently detailed knowledge of judicial timeframes in the member states enabling them to implement policies aiming to prevent violations of the right to fair trial within a reasonable time protected by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)2.

    7. The Committee of Ministers specified that arrangements should be made by the CEPEJ to avoid undue delays in judicial proceedings and to reduce their cost3.

    8. The Centre SATURN shall in particular:

    § act as a European Observatory of judicial timeframes, analyse the quantitative and qualitative situation regarding time management in European courts (case-flow management, timeframes per types of cases, waiting times within proceedings, etc.);

    § provide member states with tools for knowledge and analysis of case-flows, backlogs and timeframes of judicial proceedings;

    § promote and assess the implementation in the member states and ensure the updating of the SATURN Guidelines for judicial time management and other relevant CEPEJ tools4.

    9. In order to fulfil its tasks, the Steering group shall in particular:

    § collect, process, assess and analyse the relevant quantitative and qualitative information on time management in courts, including the information available within the framework of the CEPEJ's process for evaluating judicial systems (cf. in particular the replies to questions 90, 92 and 93 and those concerning the four types of cases) as well as the information available at the European Court of Human Rights;

    § define and improve measuring systems and common indicators on judicial timeframes in all member states and develop appropriate modalities and tools for collecting information through statistical analysis;

    § rely on appropriate networks allowing the work and considerations of the judicial community to be integrated, particularly regarding the network of pilot courts within the member states, to exploit innovative projects aimed at reducing and adjusting the timeframes operated by courts in member states;

    § organise and implement a court coaching programme (on a volunteer basis) for the effective use of the CEPEJ's tools and guidelines, on the basis of an implementation protocol to be finalised by the Group5.

    10. In addition, having regard to the growing caseload of the European Court of Human Rights, the CEPEJ should adopt provisional, protective or any other urgent measures obtained by simple and rapid procedures in order to provide interim solutions, which, although not final, ensure the effective protection of the rights of the parties or of third persons, as well as the efficiency of judicial proceedings6.

    11. The SATURN Centre’s freedom of manoeuvre in the discharge of its terms of reference is restricted by the following constraints:

    a) It is necessary to bear in mind not only the tools developed by the CEPEJ but also provisions contained in the relevant international legal instruments of the Council of Europe7 regarding judicial timeframes, in particular:

    · Recommendation No. R(84)5 on the principles of civil procedure designed to improve the functioning of justice

    · Recommendation No. R(86)12 concerning measures to prevent and reduce the excessive workload in the courts

    · Recommendation No. R(87)18 concerning the simplification of criminal justice

    · Recommendation No. R(94)12 on the independence, efficiency and role of judges

    · Recommendation No. R(95)5 concerning the introduction and improvement of the functioning of appeal systems and procedures in civil and commercial cases

    · Recommendation No. R95(12) on the management of criminal justice

    · Recommendation No. Rec(2001)2 concerning the design and re-design of court systems and legal information systems in a cost-effective manner

    · Recommendation No. Rec(2001)3 on the delivery of court and other legal services to the citizen through the use of new technologies

    · Opinion N° 6 (2004) of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) – Fair trial within a reasonable time

      · Study N° 316/2004 of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) – Report on the effectiveness of domestic remedies regarding excessive length of proceedings.

    b) The use of information and communication technologies shall be promoted in order to strengthen the efficiency of justice, in particular in order to facilitate access to justice, speed up court proceedings, improve the training of legal professionals, as well as the administration of justice and management of courts8.

    c) The CEPEJ and consequently the SATURN Centre shall not be supervisory or monitoring bodies of the Council of Europe9.

    d) The CEPEJ and consequently the SATURN Centre may only render assistance to one or more member states, including assistance in complying with the standards of the Council of Europe, at the request of one or more states10.

    12. The SATURN Centre has resources11 as follows to carry out its terms of reference:

    § the members of the CEPEJ,

    § the six national experts of the Steering group of the SATURN Centre, who may meet as a rule twice a year, subject to budgetary resources,

    § the scientific experts and consultants commissioned by the SATURN Centre, within the limits of the funds available,

    § the CEPEJ networks of CEPEJ (Pilot courts and Lisbon Network),

    § the Secretariat of the CEPEJ,

    § the content of the SATURN tool box (see para. 4 above).

2. Overall objectives

    13. The target of the SATURN Centre is to contribute to prevent violations of art. 6 ECHR in the area of excessive procedure lengths within the member states and limit the workload of the ECtHR vis-à-vis the high volume of pending cases regarding the excessive lengths of proceedings. Then it seeks to:

    § obtain a global view of the situation in the area of procedure lengths within the member states,

    § identify the real reason of the excessive lengths of proceedings,

    § propose methodologies and tools to optimise the lengths of proceedings,

    § help members states to implement the methodologies and tools to optimise the lengths of proceedings.

3. Strategic goals

    14. The goals are listed in a (chrono)logical order and not in an order of importance or priority:

    § Strategic goal 1 – Data collection

    Periodically collect data on procedural times in member states
    - at national and regional level
    - for all types of proceedings (civil, criminal and administrative)
    - for all courts: 1st , 2nd (appeal) and 3rd (supreme court) instance.

    § Strategic goal 2 – Continuous improvement of data collected

Verify the completeness and quality of the data collected in order to make improvements.

    § Strategic goal 3 – Analysis of data collected

    Analyse the data collected and collate them with the principles relating to procedural times derived from the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

    § Strategic goal 4 - Adoption of standards relating to judicial timeframes

    Define guidelines and standards relating to procedural times
    - for all state organs concerned with justice: legislators, bodies vested with the administration of

    justice, court managers, judges, prosecutors, police officers
    - for all types of proceedings (civil, criminal and administrative)
    - for all courts: 1st , 2nd (appeal) and 3rd (supreme court) instance and the relevant prosecution

    services

    § Strategic goal 5 - Dissemination of the standards and information relating to judicial timeframes

    Disseminate in member states the guidelines, the standards and the results of analysis of the data collected.

    § Strategic goal 6 - Active promotion of the use of judicial time management tools
    Promote the use of judicial time management tools, particularly those developed by the SATURN Centre, in all member states to enable them to:
    - make their own analysis of the situation regarding judicial timeframes in their courts
    - apply their own remedies to any excessive procedural delays.

    § Strategic goal 7 – Support to the implementation of judicial time management tools

    Undertake within the member states most concerned by questions of procedural delays, and with their agreement, targeted actions to improve their situation (preventive or proactive measures) by implementing judicial time management tools in those countries.

4. Operational goals – concrete actions and projects (Action Plan)

Definitions

    15. Operational goals: Each strategic goal is translated into several operational goals and describes the goals to be achieved in the medium and short term.

    16. The operational goal is expressed as far as possible, in SMART terms:

    - Specific

    - Measurable

    - Accepted

    - Realistic and with a

    - Time of attainment.

    17. Concrete actions and projects: Each operational goal is translated into several concrete actions or into projects. Each project is the partial outcome of an operational goal. Each project lasts 3-12 months on average and is normally carried out by an expert team (experts, national delegates, court managers, judges, etc.).

Operational goals – Action plan (projects)

    § Strategic goal 1 – Data collection

    Periodically collect data on procedural times in member states
    - at national and regional level
    - for all types of proceedings (civil, criminal and administrative)
    - for all courts: 1st , 2nd (appeal) and 3rd (supreme court) instance.

To achieve this goal, the following projects, of different sizes, are envisaged:

    Project 1 – Summing up of the data on caseload and timeframes of proceedings collected in the context of the evaluation of European judicial systems (chapter 9 of the report on European judicial systems).

Description of stages

Who?

When?

1

Summing up of the data contained in the replies to the questions on caseload and procedural times, and long-term storage of the data (table or database) in comprehensible form for future utilisation

Scientific expert12

Every 2 years13

    Project 2 – Collection of data on procedural times from the CEPEJ pilot courts and representative courts in the member states regarding civil, criminal and administrative proceedings.

Description of stages

Who?

When?

1

Setting up of a tool for collecting extra data on civil, criminal and administrative justice on caseload and procedural times from the pilot courts and other courts in the member states

Scientific expert

Winter 2011 - 2012

2

Discussion and adoption of the questionnaire

SATURN Steering group

Spring 2012

3

Collection of data on caseload and procedural times founded on EUGMONT

Secretariat

Annual

4

Aggregation of the data collected

Scientific expert

Every 2 years

5

Discussion and adoption of the data aggregation

SATURN Steering group

Every 2 years

6

Feedback to the pilot courts and release of the data aggregation on the Internet

SATURN Steering group + CEPEJ secretariat

Every 2 years

    Project 2a – Update on ECtHR case law to the reasonable time criterion

Description of stages

Who?

When?

1

Permanent point on the agenda of the SATURN-Meetings

Secretariat

Every meetings

2

Digest of the recent developments in the relevant ECrtHR case law concerning judicial timeframes between two meetings

Scientific expert

Every meetings

3

Discussion and ev. decision about modifications in the SATURN-documents

SATURN steering Group

Every meetings

Project 3 – Digest of case law of the ECrtHR.

Description of stages

Who?

When?

1

Digest of ECrtHR case law concerning judicial timeframes over the last 5 years and drafting of a supplementary report to the existing report by Ms Françoise Calvez14

Scientific expert

every 5 years15

2

Discussion and adoption of the draft report

SATURN Steering group

Every 5 years

3

Discussion and adoption of the report

CEPEJ plenary meeting

Every 5 years

4

Diffusion et publication du rapport

Secretariat

Every 5 years

Project 4 – Collection of data from the ECtHR16

Description of stages

Who?

When?

1

Request for statistical data in respect of the previous year on judicial timeframes from the ECrtHR: number of new cases per country; number of cases cleared per country with indication of the outcome of proceedings (inadmissibility, violation, non-violation, etc.)

CEPEJ secretariat

Each year, during the 1st half17

2

ECrtHR Registry supplies the requested statistics

ECrtHR Registry

Each year, beginning of 2nd quarter

3

Examination of the statistics and discussion with the ECrtHR Registry as required

SATURN Steering group

Each year

4

Posting of statistics on Internet (with the ECrtHR’s consent)

Secretariat

Each year

    § Strategic goal 2 – Continuous improvement of data collected

Verify the completeness and quality of the data collected in order to make improvements.

To achieve this strategic goal, the following projects are envisaged:

Project 5 - Evaluating and improving the completeness of data

    It is often difficult for member states to deliver data on caseload but chiefly on procedural times. Under this project, the aim is to help member states deliver complete data.

Description of stages

Who?

When?

1

Examination of the data contained in the replies to the questions on caseload and procedural times, and drafting of a report in tabular form containing:

- an inventory of the member states delivering incomplete data

- indication of the authority empowered to determine the content of judicial statistics in the member states

- an explanation for each country of the causes for incompleteness of data18

- a proposal for each country for improving data collection

- a proposal for priority actions for the next year

Scientific expert

annual

2

Discussion and adoption of the report and its action plan

SATURN Steering group in conjunction with EVAL group

Annual

3

Publication of the report on the Internet

Secretariat

Annual

4

Implementation of the action plan

Secretariat,

EVAL Group in conjunction with SATURN Steering group

Over the next 2 years

    Project 6 – Evaluation of the quality of the data collected

    Data on caseload and timeframes of proceedings are collected in the context of the evaluation of European judicial systems (GT-EVAL). Under this project, the aim is firstly to check the coherence of the data supplied and secondly to collate the data supplied at national level with those collected from the pilot courts and representative courts.

Description of stages

Who?

When?

1

Examination of the data contained in the replies to the questions on caseload and procedural times and verification of coherence internally and over time

Scientific expert

annual

2

Comparison of the verified data with those collected from the pilot courts and representative courts

Scientific expert

annual

3

Drafting of a report in tabular form containing:

- a list of member states

- a country-based evaluation of the quality of the data supplied

- an explanation of the causes of any divergences between national and local statistics (pilot courts and representative courts)

- a country-specific proposal, as required, for improving the quality of the data collected

- a proposal for priority actions for the next year

Scientific expert

annual

4

Discussion and adoption of the report

SATURN Steering group in conjunction with EVAL group

annual

5

Publication of the report on the Internet

Secretariat

annual

6

Implementation of the action plan

Secretariat

EVAL Group in conjunction with SATURN Steering group

Over the next year

    § Strategic goal 3 – Analysis of data collected

    Analyse the data collected and collate them with the principles relating to procedural times derived from the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

To achieve this strategic goal, the following project is envisaged:

Project 7 – Report on judicial timeframes in member states19

Description of stages

Who?

When?

1

On the basis of the data collected in the course of project 1, a draft report is to be produced on the state of affairs as regards procedural times, according to the pattern (tables, graphs, maps and texts) of the report on European judicial systems (chapter 9) and taking the conclusions of projects 5 and 6 into account

Scientific expert20

Every 2 years21

2

Discussion and adoption of the draft report

SATURN Steering group

Every 2 years

3

Discussion an adoption of the report

Plenary meeting

Every 2 years

4

Publication and dissemination of the report

CEPEJ secretariat

Every 2 years

    § Strategic goal 4 - Adoption of standards relating to judicial timeframes

    Define guidelines and standards relating to procedural times

    - for all state organs concerned with justice: legislators, bodies vested with the administration of justice, court managers, judges, prosecutors, police officers

    - for all types of proceedings (civil, criminal and administrative)

    - for all courts: 1st , 2nd (appeal) and 3rd (supreme court) instance and the relevant prosecution

    services

To achieve this strategic goal, the following projects are envisaged:

    Project 8 – Adaptation of the SATURN Guidelines for judicial time management (doc CEPEJ(2008)8Rev)

    Under this project, the aim is to adapt the existing guidelines to the development of the situation if need be22. The following stages may be contemplated as required:

Description of stages

Who?

When?

1

Amendment to the guidelines

SATURN Steering group

Only in case of pressing need

2

Discussion and adoption of the amendments

SATURN Steering Group

 

3

Discussion of the amendments

Pilot courts

 

4

Discussion and adoption of the amendments

Plenary meeting

 

5

Publication on the Internet and dissemination of the amended guidelines

CEPEJ Secretariat

 

6

Should the guidelines be modified in substance, information of the Committee of Ministers

CEPEJ Secretariat and President

 

    The guidelines are a text of general nature, which should stay as stable as possible. Implementation examples of specific points of the guidelines had to be integrated into the comment to the guidelines, which is a dynamic and easy modifiable document. The in the guidelines proposed tools and measures have to be conform to all the procedural guaranties of the ECHR.

Project 9 – Definition of standards for judicial timeframes23

    Taking as a basis the analysis of the data collected in the evaluation of European judicial systems (cf. projects 1 and 7), the data collected from pilot courts and representative courts (cf. project 2) and the case law and statistics of the ECrtHR (cf. projects 3 and 4), the aim is to define standards for judicial timeframes in order to clarify the concept of reasonable time, help member states set internal objectives and ultimately unify procedural times at European level.

Description of stages

Who?

When?

1

Preparation of a preliminary draft appendix 2 to the SATURN guidelines for judicial time management

Scientific expert

1st quarter 2012

2

1st discussion and adoption of a preliminary draft in the SATURN Steering group

SATURN steering Group

2nd quarter 2012

3

Preliminary draft submitted to consultation:
- discussion with representatives of the ECtHR
- discussion with the pilot courts
- written consultation and/or discussion with the other CEPEJ working groups and with CCJE, CCPE, etc.

Secretariat and SATURN steering group

2nd half 2012

4

Incorporation of comments and preparation of a draft appendix 2 to the guidelines for judicial time management

Scientific expert

1st quarter 2013

5

2nd discussion and adoption of a draft

SATURN steering Group

2nd quarter 2013

6

Discussion and adoption of appendix 2 to the SATURN guidelines for judicial time management

Plenary meeting

Summer 2013

7

Information on appendix 2 to the Committee of Ministers

CEPEJ Secretariat and President

Autumn 2013

8

Publication on the Internet and dissemination of the amended guidelines

CEPEJ Secretariat

Autumn 2013

    § Strategic goal 5 - Dissemination of the standards and information relating to judicial timeframes

    Disseminate in member states the guidelines, the standards and the results of analysis of the data collected.


    The achievement of this goal is not covered by a specific project but is embodied in each of the actual projects mentioned in this document. The synoptic table below gives an overview of all documents specifically communicated, and indicates the medium of communication.

Documents

Medium of communication

     

Publication

   

Selective routing

Paper

Internet

1

Statistics of pilot and other courts

x

 

x

2

Statistics of ECtHR on judicial timeframes

x

 

x

3

SATURN report on completeness of data

   

x

4

SATURN report on quality of data

   

x

5

SATURN report on judicial timeframes (extra data)

x

x

x

6

SATURN guidelines for judicial time management including the 2 appendices

x

x24

x

7

List of speakers and experts and of available documentation on judicial time management

x

 

x

8

Experts’ reports on implementation of tools relating to judicial timeframes in member states

x

 

x

    § Strategic goal 6 - Active promotion of the use of judicial time management tools
    Promote the use of judicial time management tools, particularly those developed by the SATURN Centre, in all member states to enable them to:
    - make their own analysis of the situation regarding judicial timeframes in their courts
    - apply their own remedies to any excessive procedural delays.

    To achieve this strategic goal, the following project is envisaged:

    Project 10 – Targeted informational actions in the member states

    The authorities ( government departments, courts, judicial academies, etc.) and institutions (universities, associations active in the sphere of justice, etc.) in the member states organise various events or basic or in-service judicial training courses. The SATURN Steering group provides organisers, speakers and documentation on judicial time management.

Description of stages

Who?

When?

1

Compiling a list of the members of the SATURN Steering group available to act as speakers and/or experts

SATURN steering Group

Autumn 2011

2

Compiling a list of the available documents on judicial timeframes (guidelines, studies, Powerpoint presentations, etc.)

SATURN steering Group

Autumn 2011

3

Putting on line on the Internet the list of speakers and experts and documents (or links to documents)

CEPEJ Secretariat

4th quarter 2011

4

Updating of the aforementioned lists

SATURN steering Group

Once a year
(normally at 1st meeting)

5

Updating of information on the website

CEPJ Secretariat

Once a year (after SATURN Steering group meeting)

    § Strategic goal 7 – Support to the implementation of judicial time management tools

    Undertake within the member states most concerned by questions of procedural delays, and with their agreement, targeted actions to improve their situation (preventive or proactive measures) by implementing judicial time management tools in those countries.

To achieve this strategic goal, the following project is envisaged:

    Project 11 – Support to courts in implementing the SATURN guidelines for judicial time management25

Description of stages

Who?

When?

1

On the basis of the appraisal of the situation regarding judicial timeframes (report arising from project N° 7), and of the analysis of ECtHR statistics (cf. project N° 4), it is envisaged:

- to make a list of member states where the level of implementation of the SATURN guidelines for judicial time management would require detailed examination by a group of experts

- to propose priority countries over the two subsequent years

scientific expert

Every 2 years, coinciding with report resulting from project N° 4

2

Adoption of the list and the action plan, including small projects

SATURN steering Group

Every 2 years

3

Establishment of contact with the competent bodies in the member states to suggest to them a detailed review by Council of Europe experts of the situation regarding judicial timeframes

Secretariat and/or CEPEJ President and/or Chair of SATURN steering group

Every 2 years

4

Defining the substance of the experts’ terms of reference by common agreement with the competent bodies of the member states:
- examination of legislation

- examination of the judicial organisation at national level

- examination of court management at national or regional level

- examination of case management in the selected courts

CEPEJ Secretariat, if appropriate in conjunction with CoE local project offices and with the proposed experts

 

5

Mission by the experts to the state concerned

SATURN, CEPEJ and/or CoE experts

 

6

Preparation of an expert report containing

- a succinct review of the situation regarding timeframes (excerpt from the report generated by project N° 7)

- a conspectus of the causes leading to delays

- a summary of the information received during the experts’ mission

- recommendations for practical measures capable of remedying excessive length of proceedings

experts concerned

 

7

Presentation and discussion of the report with the competent authorities of the member state concerned in order to arrive at an action plan in respect of the member state

experts concerned and representatives of the member states’ authorities

 

8

Correction of the report in the light discussions

experts concerned

 

9

Putting the report on line on the Internet

CEPEJ Secretariat

 

10

Implementation of the action plan

authorities concerned in the member states

 

11

Monitoring of implementation by a meeting between the experts and the authorities concerned, and analysis of the trend in the situation

experts concerned and competent authorities in the member states

2 years after that measures are implemented or after the delivery of final version of report (cf. stage 9)

12

Preparation in all cases of a 2nd report containing an analysis of the effectiveness of the measures taken or noting the member state’s inaction

   


The regular reports drawn up every two years by GT-EVAL and SATURN should disclose an improvement of the situation in member states which have implemented practical measures for determining cases within a reasonable time. Where the measures introduced are ineffective or the member state concerned is inactive, it will be placed on the list of states where a thorough examination of timeframes would be advisable and might give rise to a further project according to the sequence described above.

1 SATURN = Study and Analysis of judicial Time Use Research Network.

2 Doc. CEPEJ(2010)9 (= SATURN terms of reference), appendix II, ch. 1, 1st paragraph.

3 Resolution Res(2002)12 of 18 September 2002 establishing the European Commission for the efficiency of justice(CEPEJ), ch.I, 2, i, in fine.

4 Doc. CEPEJ(2010)9 (= SATURN terms of reference), appendix II, ch. 1, paragraphs 2-5.

5 Doc. CEPEJ(2010)9 (SATURN terms of reference), appendix II, ch. 1, paragraphs 7-11.

6 Resolution Res(2002)12 of 18 September 2002 establishing the European Commission for the efficiency of justice, ch. I, 2, iii. The urgent measures were prepared by the CEPEJ Taskforce on Timeframes of Proceedings and adopted in plenary by the CEPEJ:
- Time management checklist (doc. CEPEJ(2005)12REV.),
- Framework Programme: A new objective for judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe (doc. CEPEJ(2004)19 Rev 2),
- Compendium of “best practices” on time management of judicial proceedings (doc. CEPEJ(2006)13.

7 Resolution Res(2002)12 of 18 September 2002 establishing the European Commission for the efficiency of justice, ch. 2, ii.

8 Resolution Res(2002)12 of 18 September 2002 establishing the European Commission for the efficiency of justice, ch. IV, i.

9 Resolution Res(2002)12 of 18 September 2002 establishing the European Commission for the efficiency of justice, appendix 1 (statute of the CEPEJ), Art. 2, para. 2.

10 Resolution Res(2002)12 of 18 September 2002 establishing the European Commission for the efficiency of justice, appendix 1 (statute of the CEPEJ), Art. 2, para. 1 (D) in conjunction with Art. 4, para. 2.

11 Doc. CEPEJ(2010)9 (= SATURN terms of reference), appendix II, ch. 3.

12 As far as possible, for reasons of coherence, it should be the same scientific expert as the one assigned the processing of the data for the drafting of the report on European judicial systems on behalf of the EVAL group.

13 According to the time schedule for data collection by the EVAL group, for the first time in 2011 (2008 data).

14 Analysis of the length of court proceedings in the member states of the Council of Europe
based on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, a report approved at the plenary meeting of the CEPEJ in December 2006.

15 For the 1st time in 2011.

16 Example: Doc. CEPEJ-SATURN(2011)7 "Statistiques de la CEDH".

17 For the 1st time early in 2011.

18 For example because member states do not have statistics for the common case categories.

19 Example: Doc. CEPEJ-SATURN(2011)3 "Study on Council of Europe Member States Appeal and Supreme Courts' Lengths of Proceedings".

20 As far as possible, for reasons of coherence, it should be the same scientific expert as the one assigned the processing of the data for the drafting of the report on European judicial systems on behalf of the EVAL group.

21 After the drafting of the 2012 report on European judicial systems.

22 One of the actual (2011) gaps of the guidelines is the lack of recommendations for monitoring the procedure lengths, especially in criminal cases the time used on the pre trial stage.

23 One base for this task is certainly the doc. CEPEJ-SATURN(2011)6 "A discussion paper for the 9th meeting of the Steering Committee of the SATURN Centre for Judicial Time Management of the Commission for the Efficiency of Justice of the Council of Europe".

24 Upon the adoption of appendix 2 containing the standards as regards procedural timeframes.

25 About implementing tests, see doc. CEPEJ-SATURN(2011)2 "Implementation of SATURN Time Management Tools – Synthesizing report from seven test projects".



 Top