Strasbourg, 11 April 2014
CEPEJ-SATURN(2014)6
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
Steering Group of the SATURN Centre for Judicial Time Management (CEPEJ-SATURN)
15th meeting
Strasbourg, 10 and 11 April 2014
MEETING REPORT
Report prepared by the Secretariat
Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law
I. Introduction
1. The Steering Group of the SATURN Centre for the study and analysis of judicial time management of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) held its 15th meeting in Strasbourg on 10 and 11 April 2014. The Group appointed Mr Jacques BÜHLER (Switzerland) as Chair.
2. The agenda and the list of participants appear respectively in Appendices I and II to this report.
II. Information from the Chair, Group members and the Secretariat
3. The Chair welcomed Ivan CRNCEC (Croatia), Souad EL FARHAOUI (Morocco) and the Jordanian delegation, which was attending a meeting for the first time so as to acquaint itself with the current work of the SATURN Group.
4. The Secretariat provided information on the work being done by the CEPEJ with the European Commission in the context of the Justice Scoreboard and on the progress of the CEPEJ's work on the next edition of the report on "European judicial systems".
5. It gave a general presentation of the CEPEJ's current co-operation activities with Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia and informed the Group that a specific meeting with the Jordanian delegation was scheduled on 11 April 2014 in the afternoon (Appendix III). A Jordanian delegation had also visited Bologna and Turin from 25 to 27 March 2014 at the invitation of Marco Fabri, a SATURN Group expert, and Giacomo Oberto, a Group member, for a study visit, including workshops focusing on judicial time management.
6. Ivana BORZOVA (Czech Republic) informed the Group that she had participated in a conference in Warsaw in January 2014, at which she had presented the CEPEJ and its activities, in particular the work of the SATURN Group.
7. John STACEY mentioned the peer evaluation visit made by CEPEJ experts to Jerusalem in March, since Israel had obtained observer status with the CEPEJ.
III. Follow-up of the EUGMONT report and 2011 data analysis of pilot court replies
8. Mr Marco FABRI, scientific expert, presented the draft report “European Uniform Guidelines for Monitoring Judicial Timeframes (EUGMONT) – Data analysis of pilot court replies (2009-2011 data)” (Document CEPEJ-SATURN(2014)2, English only), which he had drawn up at the request of the SATURN Group.
9. He informed the Group that the data supplied by the pilot courts were not fully representative of all tiers of courts and categories of proceedings. For instance, the report contained very little data on administrative cases, bankruptcy cases or cases involving the sexual exploitation of children. He had nonetheless noted an improvement in the collection of statistics, for example at the Turin court, which was a reassuring sign for the collection of statistics at national level in future. He underlined that, although the quantitative data were important, they must always be accompanied by qualitative data.
10. Irakli ADEISHVILI (Georgia) proposed that the SATURN Group invite some representatives from the pilot courts which provided good quality data to its next meeting, so they could explain their collection methods. He considered that this might permit the identification of good practices on which other courts could draw.
11. Marco FABRI deemed it possible to ask a limited number of courts (between 5 and 10 for example) to provide information on certain categories of cases covered by a new questionnaire before the next meeting. The idea would be to obtain figures, and also qualitative data, on these categories. A few courts could then be selected to present their results at the Group's next meeting in October. The Chair suggested holding a workshop on this theme at the meeting of the pilot courts.
12. The Group asked Marco FABRI to prepare a questionnaire for a selection of pilot courts with the aim of obtaining for certain types of cases (contested divorces, dismissals, bankruptcies, family law cases) both the data usually collected (cases pending at the beginning of the period, incoming cases, resolved cases, cases pending at the end of the period) and data on the average duration of proceedings, plus certain qualitative data (such as "Who is responsible for data collection within the court?" "How long did it take to furnish these data?").
IV. SATURN Guidelines for judicial time management – comments and implementation examples
13. The Secretariat announced that, despite the call for updates issued at the last meeting, no comments or updates concerning this document had been received.
14. Marco FABRI proposed that the document be transmitted with the agenda of the next meeting of the pilot courts (Strasbourg, 16 October 2014), so they could comment on it at that meeting.
V. Definition of targets for judicial timeframes
15. Marco FABRI presented document CEPEJ-SATURN(2014)3, which he had prepared and which set out to define target timeframes for the attention of courts.
16. The report proposed three groups of countries for the purpose of evaluating judicial timeframes. Some members considered that these groups made it possible to have a better grasp of the problems and to adapt the policies accordingly, while others wanted to avoid any kind of classification. Marco FABRI pointed out that assignment to a group was not imposed, but rather it was for each country to decide to which group it belonged. A country could fall within one group for a given category of cases but in another group for another category. The aim was to find solutions while taking into account the States' diversity.
17. Further to a proposal by the Chair, the SATURN Group considered that the document should be more detailed regarding the response to a number of fundamental questions:
- Was it possible to set a target inconsistent with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights or which went beyond its requirements?
- How could the member States' diverse capacities to manage timeframes be taken into account?
- Should the targets be differentiated according to the tier of jurisdiction concerned?
- How could the targets be tested with a view to their validation?
18. The Group considered that the three groups could be regarded as steps towards a target set at national level, which could go beyond the European Court's minimum standard in terms of the reasonable time requirement (two years).
19. A method of attaining this target should also be envisaged. For example, the target for a State which fell short of group "C" would be to attain the group "C" standard, while a State that fell between groups A and B should have group "A" as its target. Mention was made of the fact that the targets must serve as a motivation for courts and encourage States to free up the necessary resources.
20. The possibility of creating a group "D" was raised, as many States would have difficulties in reaching the group "C" objectives. The Group however agreed to confine itself to three groups for the time being and to see with the pilot courts whether the targets were attainable. It also decided to add to the document by indicating:
- That rating "A" was the objective all courts should aim for.
- That rating "B" was an intermediate stage on the way to meeting the standard for rating "A", which should be possible through the allocation of additional budgetary resources, for example.
- That rating "C" corresponded to intermediate objectives which, if not improved upon, exposed the State concerned to a risk of being found in breach of Article 6 of the Convention in the event of a judgment by the Court.
21. The Group underlined that consideration must be given to the difficulties inherent in obtaining data on alternative dispute resolution tools and, in particular, mediation.
22. For each of the groups ("A", "B" and "C") it was decided to retain the same timeframes for civil and administrative cases, but with different timeframes for criminal cases, excluding payment orders which would distort the data. Concerning enforcement procedures, Bernard MENUT (UIHJ) considered that they should be disregarded in so far as this form of enforcement took place within the courts in some States but not in others. This meant that only the time spent in court proceedings should be taken into account.
23. In conclusion, it was proposed that simple targets should first be set for the work done by the courts, with supplementary targets being added at a later stage for mediation and enforcement.
24. The Group asked Marco FABRI to amend the document in the light of these discussions, following which the Secretariat should send it to the pilot courts for comments along with the convocation to their next meeting. At a later stage, it might be sent to the members of the CCJE and the judges of the European Court of Human Rights.
VI. Indicators for measuring the quality of justice (CEPEJ-GT-QUAL)
25. At its 22nd plenary meeting (5-6 December 2013) the CEPEJ had examined the document "Measuring and improving the quality of judicial services: CEPEJ practical guidance for quality measurement"(CEPEJ-GT-QUAL(2012)2Rev3/CEPEJ-GT-EVAL(2013)4), prepared by its Working Group on Quality of Justice (CEPEJ-GT-QUAL). The CEPEJ had then instructed the CEPEJ-GT-QUAL, the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL and the SATURN Group to collaborate further on this document in order to finalise it, notably on the following themes: "Quality of decisions" (percentage of appeals compared to the total number of final judgments and percentage of appeals upheld) and "Justice performance".
26. John STACEY pointed out that the document was a tool offering practical guidance with a view to determining criteria and indicators enabling States to form a general idea of the quality of their justice systems. It did not aim to impose a specific model, but offered ideas for improving measurement of the quality of judicial services and of the justice system.
27. Regarding the table concerning "Justice performance" (p. 13 of the document), the SATURN Group proposed that it should firstly be refocused on the performance of courts, rather than the justice system as a whole. The titles of the document and the table should be amended accordingly. It then proposed that two indicators should be added to this table: "disposition time" and "case turnover ratio" and that the more detailed "Timeliness" indicators in Appendix 15 on page 53 of the document should be substituted for point D in the "Justice performance" table. It was also suggested that the introduction should mention the importance of judicial timeframes for the good running of courts and the need to determine objectives consistent with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. Lastly, it was proposed that in the title of indicator D "Average time between session and judgment" the term "session" should be replaced with "case registration" and that in the section "Standard" for indicator D the expression "1. More than x days; 2. From x to x days; etc." should be replaced with "1. x% of cases in y months; 2. x% of cases in t months; etc."
28. The Chair proposed that these points should be raised with Jean-Paul JEAN, who chaired the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL working group, before transmitting them to the members of the CEPEJ-GT-QUAL working group. The Group agreed.
29. Jon JOHNSEN gave a presentation entitled "Appeals and trial within reasonable time. An European perspective". This study, which would shortly be published and distributed to the members of the SATURN Group, was based on the CEPEJ data, in particular those concerning disposition time at appeal and before the Supreme Court. By making data comparisons between a number of States it showed the main trends concerning the average length of proceedings calculated in years (not days) for each level of court. The study showed in particular that, within the same justice system, court performance could vary greatly depending on the tier of jurisdiction (for instance, very short proceedings at first instance followed by very long proceedings on appeal, or vice versa) and the subject matter (with a particular difference between criminal proceedings, on one hand, and civil, commercial and administrative proceedings, on the other hand.)
VII. Recent ECtHR case-law on the reasonable time criterion and EctHR statistics
30. The Chair said there had been no change in the Court's case-law that would require the CEPEJ to modify its practice. He cited two cases involving issues of principle, the Idalov v. Russia judgment of 27 May 2012 (concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention) and the Vlad and Others v. Romania judgment of 26 November 2013 (concerning the lack of an effective domestic remedy for raising a complaint of excessive length of proceedings).
31. The Group then examined document CEPEJ-SATURN(2014)5. It noted that Turkey, Hungary, Slovenia and Italy were the countries with the most cases concerning excessive length of proceedings.
VIII. Continuous improvement of data collection
32. The Secretariat presented a report on the replies to the questions on the timeframes of proceedings (questions 91, 94, 97, 98, 99, 101 and 102) in the CEPEJ Evaluation Scheme for the current evaluation cycle (2012-2014).
33. The total number of replies, for all the questions taken together, was generally higher for the 2010-2012 cycle than for 2004-2006. A slight decrease could be noted for the 2012-2014 cycle, but the explanation for would seem to lie in the current discussions with the national correspondents concerning quality control of the data. Among the most extreme examples, note could be taken of the very low response to the parts of question 97 concerning land registry and business registry cases (less than 5 countries) and the higher response to question 94 (some 30 countries).
34. The Secretariat specified that it had counted the number of responses including statistical data for all these questions. Responses without data or containing the indication "0", "NA" or "NAP" had not been counted. The response rates had been produced for all the cycles, from 2004-2006 to 2012-2014, for 48 countries evaluated (Liechtenstein had been excluded from the analysis because of a complete lack of data, and the United Kingdom was split into three entities).
IX. Exchange of views on whether the CEPEJ should propose the updating of Recommendation R(86)12 concerning measures to prevent and reduce the excessive workload in the courts
35. The European Union of Rechtspfleger and Court Clerks (EUR), represented by Michel CRAMET, proposed that the SATURN Group hold an exchange of views on whether it would be appropriate to update Recommendation R(86)12.
36. Giacomo OBERTO (Italy) considered that the recommendation should indeed be amended so as to reinforce the role of judges and take into account all the developments that had taken place since 1986.
39. The Secretariat pointed out that the CEPEJ was not a standard-setting committee and was therefore not competent to amend a recommendation. It could nonetheless make contact with the CDCJ (European Committee on Legal Co-operation) and the CDCP (European Committee on Crime Problems) to propose working in this field.
X. Promotion and dissemination of SATURN judicial time management tools and CEPEJ co-operation programmes
a) Coaching programme in Malta
43. Francesco DESPASQUALE provided information on the meeting to be held in Malta at the end of May 2014, which would be open to all judges and court clerks and in which John STACEY and Jacques BUHLER would participate.
b) Co-operation with Albania
37. All the old civil court cases had been transferred to the administrative courts. The aim was to reduce the backlog.
38. Jon T. JOHNSEN and Jacques BUHLER wished to implement the CEPEJ's tools (SATURN guidelines and quality check-list) in the five pilot courts and the Supreme Court. They had noted some reluctance to co-operate among Albanian courts.
39. The project was taking place in two phases: the CEPEJ tools would be first tested in the five pilot courts which included the High Court of Albania, Court of Appeal of Vlora, District Court of Elbasan; Administrative Court of Tirana; and the First Instance Serious Crimes Court of Tirana until the end of December 2014. The second phase, from January to December 2015, would extend the co-operation to the rest of the Albanian courts, methodology and CEPEJ tools being adjusted on the basis of the results of the piloting phase.
c) Co-operation with Croatia
40. Ivan CRNCEC (Croatia) presented the co-operation project between Croatia and the CEPEJ on reorganisation of the Croatian judicial system, which was financed with a voluntary contribution from Norway (Norway Grants) and should begin in June.
41. A justice system reform programme had just been launched in Croatia and had four focuses: geographical reorganisation, structural reorganisation, changes to appeal procedures and computerisation. This reform, which was taking place in stages, should be completed by July 2015. The CEPEJ's assistance should prove useful with certain phases of the reform, in particular for the collection of judicial statistical data facilitating understanding of the needs and for the training of justice system professionals in use of the SATURN tools.
d) South programme
42. Concerning the activity in Morocco, three pilot courts had implemented the CEPEJ standards. Some aspects were still at the test stage:
i. The satisfaction surveys at the level of these three pilot courts. An external firm would be selected and trained to administer the satisfaction surveys.
ii. For the pilot courts, the experts had dispensed training to court practitioners and justice ministry officials.
43. As regarded the progress of justice system reform, all of the CEPEJ's recommendations had been included in the Charter published last July.
44. The Casablanca First Instance Court had applied all of the CEPEJ's recommendations.
45. The Secretariat announced that the CEPEJ, the CCJE and the Venice Commission were working with the Moroccan Ministry of Justice to evaluate the organic laws on the status of judges and on the High Council of Judicial Power. The finalised opinion would be sent next week. The CEPEJ would pursue this co-operation in respect of other legislation, notably on judicial organisation.
46. Concerning the activity in Tunisia, the experts were working with the pilot courts on pilot projects such as the introduction of scoreboards, reinforced publication of case-law, particularly that of the Court of Cassation, and a training programme in management techniques bringing together members of different professions from the same court (judges, registrars, lawyers, IT specialists and so on). The aim was to assist the courts in reorganising their routine work. This project would require the co-operation of the Bar Association, which had not shown willing so far.
47. Concerning the activity in Jordan, a meeting took place with the Jordanian delegation in the afternoon (see Appendix III).
48. Muhammad AL-GHRAIR gave a presentation on the functioning of the Jordanian justice system:
§ It had a two-tier court structure, apart from in the administrative courts which functioned with a single tier. There were plans to introduce a second tier in the administrative courts.
§ The magistrates' courts heard cases in which a fine of not more than € 7000 or a prison sentence of not more than two years might be incurred.
§ There was a Court of Appeal and a Court of Cassation.
49. Steps had been taken to reduce the length of proceedings in Jordan, especially in 2002 with the adoption of a new system of civil procedure.
e) Other coaching programmes (Turkey, etc.)
50. In Turkey the "test" phase of the project would end in June. It would then be possible to analyse the results and possibly extend the project to other countries.
51. The Secretariat announced that the pursuit of the project, agreed upon with the Swedish authorities, was currently suspended due to the situation in the country.
52. In view of the growing number of CEPEJ projects, the Secretariat proposed that its working groups' usual experts might train other colleagues, who could initially attend a number of meetings before becoming CEPEJ experts themselves.
XI. Other business
a) Internet site of the CEPEJ, SATURN page
53. The following changes were proposed:
- Adding the document "SATURN guidelines for judicial time management – comments and implementation examples" to the "Guidelines" box;
- Replacing the Framework Programme in the same box with the most recent version;
- In the "CEPEJ Studies" box, replacing the November 2011 version of the "Study on Council of Europe Member States Appeal and Supreme Courts' Lengths of Proceedings" with the new version.
b) Publication of the second version of the Velicogna report
54. Marco VELICOGNA pointed out that the data from this report could be used in the report on "European judicial systems". He would also update it for the next edition to take account of the groups utilised by the CEPEJ.
ANNEXE I
Ordre du jour de la réunion
Opening of the meeting
Ouverture de la réunion
Information by the President, members of the Group and the Secretariat
Information du Président, des membres du Groupe et du Secrétariat
Follow-up of the report EUGMONT and 2011 data analysis of pilot courts replies
Suivi du rapport EUGMONT et analyse des réponses 2011 des tribunaux pilotes
SATURN Guidelines for judicial time management - Comments and implementation examples
Lignes directrices SATURN sur la gestion du temps judiciaire - commentaires et exemples
Definition of targets for judicial timeframes
Définition d’objectifs en matière de délais judiciaires
Recent ECtHR case law to the reasonable time criterion and statistics of the ECtHR
Jurisprudence récente de la CrEDH quant au critère du délai raisonnable et statistiques de la CrEDH
Continuous improvement of data collection
Amélioration continue des données collectées
Indicators for measuring the quality of justice (CEPEJ-GT-QUAL)
Indicateurs pour mesurer la qualité de la justice (CEPEJ-GT-QUAL)
Examination of the part concerning timeframes of proceedings / Examen de la partie concernant la durée des procédures
Exchange of views concerning the opportunity for the CEPEJ to propose the updating of the Recommendation R(86)12 concerning measures to prevent and reduce the excessive workload in the courts
Echange de vues concernant l’opportunité pour la CEPEJ de proposer une mise à jour de la Recommandation R(86)12 relative à certaines mesures visant à prévenir et réduire la surcharge de travail des tribunaux
Promotion and dissemination of SATURN judicial time management tools
Promotion et diffusion des outils SATURN de gestion des délais judiciaires
1. Coaching programme in Malta
Programme d’appui à Malte
2. Coaching programme in Poland (Bialystok District Court)
Programme d’appui en Pologne (Tribunal de district de Bialystok)
3. Coaching programme in Italy (Siracusa)
Programme d’appui en Italie (Syracuse)
4. Co-operation with Albania
Coopération avec l’Albanie
5. Co-operation with Morocco
Coopération avec le Maroc
6. Co-operation with Croatia (in particular coaching programme in the court building of Karlovac)
Coopération avec la Croatie (en particulier programme d’appui aux tribunaux de Karlovac)
7. Other coaching programmes (Turkey, etc.)
Autres programmes d'appui (Turquie, etc.)
Other points - Follow up
Autres points - Suite des travaux
1. Internet site of CEPEJ: SATURN page
Site internet de la CEPEJ: page SATURN
2. Publication of the second version of the Velicogna report
Publication de la 2e version du rapport Velicogna
3. Updating of the Compilation of the replies from the member States concerning the questionnaire on Lengths of Judicial Proceedings with the data 2010 (and ev. 2012) ( = Appendix to the Velicogna report)
Mise à jour de la fiche délai judiciaire par Etats en matière de délais judiciaires avec les données 2010 (et év. 2012) (= annexes au rapport Velicogna)
* * * * * * * *
After the end ot the SATURN meeting: ev. additional meeting with the Jordan Delegation about Co-operation with Jordan
Après la réunion SATURN: év. réunion supplémentaire avec la délégation de Jordanie concernant la coopération avec la Jordanie
ANNEXE II
Liste des participants
Irakli ADEISHVILI, Chairman, Chamber of Civil Cases, Tbilisi City Court, 6, David Aghmashenebeli Kheivani 12-th, TBILISI 0131, GEORGIA, Tel: +995 32 54 10 63 (ext. 155), Fax: +995 32 54 10 63, e-mail: [email protected]
Ivana BORZOVÁ, Head, Department of Civil Supervision, Ministry of Justice, Vysehradská 16, 128 10 PRAGUE 2, CZECH REPUBLIC, Tel: +420 221 997 416, Fax: +420 221 997 557, e-mail: [email protected]
Jacques BÜHLER, Secrétaire Général suppléant, Tribunal fédéral suisse, Avenue du Tribunal fédéral 29, CH-1000 LAUSANNE 14, SUISSE, Tél : +41 21 318 91 04, Fax : +41 21 323 37 00, e-mail : [email protected] (Chair of the Group / Président du Groupe)
Francesco DEPASQUALE, Ministry representative, Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs, 184 St Lucia Street, VALLETTA 1189, MALTA, Tél: +356 20 99 64 45, e-mail: [email protected]
Giacomo OBERTO, Magistrat, Tribunal de Grande Instance, via San Francesco d'Assisi 14, I - 10122 TURIN, ITALIE, Tél.:+39 01153 28 56, e-mail: [email protected]
Ivan CRNČEC, Assistant Minister of Justice, Ulica grada Vukovara 49, 10 000 Zagreb, e-mail : [email protected]
John STACEY, International Consultant for Court Administration, 57 Lynford Way, Rushden, Northamptonshire, NN10 9LZ, UNITED KINGDOM, Tel: +44 (0)777 191 46 72, e-mail [email protected] (Chair of the CEPEJ / Président de la CEPEJ)
***
Invited State / Pays invité
***
Scientific ExpertS / Experts scientifiques
Marco FABRI, Director, Research Institute on Judicial Systems, National Research Council (IRSIG-CNR), Via Zamboni 26, 40126 BOLOGNA, ITALY, Tel: +39 051 237 044, Fax: +39 (0)51 260 250, e-mail: [email protected]
Jon T. JOHNSEN, Professor in Law, Faculty of law, University of Oslo, NORWAY, Postboks 6706, St. Olavs plass, N-0130 OSLO, Norway, Tel: +47 41 47 18 47, Fax: +47 22 85 94 20, e-mail: [email protected]
***
OBSERVERS / OBSERVATEURS
EUROPEAN UNION OF RECHTSPFLEGER AND COURT CLERKS/UNION EUROPEENNE DES GREFFIERS DE JUSTICE (EUR)
Michel CRAMET, Directeur Délégué à l’Administration Régionale Judiciaire, Cour d'appel de LYON - SAR - 35, rue Saint Jean - CS 50029 - 69321 LYON Cedex 05, FRANCE, Tél : +33 04 26 72 64 11(Secrétariat +33 04 26 72 64 00 ou/or 64 16), e-mail : [email protected]
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF BAILIFFS / UNION INTERNATIONALE DES HUISSIERS DE JUSTICE ET OFFICIERS JUDICIAIRES (UIHJ)
Me Bernard MENUT, 1er Vice-président de l’UIHJ, , FRANCE, Tél : +33 1 34 86 00 15, Fax: +33 1 34 86 82 73, e-mail : [email protected]
EUROPEAN COMMISSION / COMMISSION EUROPEENNE : Apologised / Excusé
Council of the European Union / Conseil de l’Union européenne
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (LIBE COMMISSION) / PARLEMENT EUROPEEN (COMMISSION LIBE)
WORLD BANK / BANQUE MONDIALE: Apologised / Excusé
MOROCCO / MAROC
Souad EL FARHAOUI, Magistrat à la Cour d'appel administrative de Rabat, attachée à la direction des affaires civiles au ministère de la Justice et des Libertés
JORDAN / JORDANIE
Muhammad AL-GHRAIR, Head of Amman Court
Hazem AL-SMADI, Head of Madaba Court
Aref ALI, Head of Sahab Court
Jawdat Jebreen ABU ASSAB, Ministry of Justice
Ala K. ASSALI, Programme Officer
Susan YASSIN CARCELEN, Programme Officer
Scientific Experts / Experts scientifiques
Jean-Paul JEAN, Avocat général à la Cour de cassation, Professeur associé à l’Université de Poitiers, Parquet Général, Palais de Justice, 34 quai des Orfèvres, 75001 PARIS, FRANCE, Tél: +33 01 32 95 80, e-mail : [email protected] (Chair of the GT-EVAL / Président du GT-EVAL)
Marco VELICOGNA,Researcher, Research Institute on Judicial Systems, National Research Council (IRSIG-CNR), Via Zamboni 26, 40126 BOLOGNA, ITALY
COUNCIL OF EUROPE / CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE
SECRETARIAT
Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law (DGI)
Division for the Independence and Efficiency of Justice /
Direction Générale droits de l’Homme et Etat de droit (DGI)
Division pour l’indépendance et l’efficacité de la justice
Fax: +33 (0)3 88 41 37 43
E-mail : [email protected]
Stéphane LEYENBERGER, Secretary of the CEPEJ / Secrétaire de la CEPEJ, Tel : +33 3 88 41 34 12, e-mail: [email protected]
Muriel DECOT, Co-Secretary of the CEPEJ / Co-secrétaire de la CEPEJ, Tél: +33 3 90 21 44 55, e-mail: [email protected]
Christel SCHURRER, Administrator / Administrateur, Tél : +33 3 90 21 56 97, e-mail : [email protected]
Jean-Pierre GEILLER, Documentation, Tél : +33 3 88 41 22 27, e-mail : [email protected]
Annette SATTEL, Communication, Tél: +33 3 88 41 39 04, e-mail: [email protected]
Evelyne SIMON, Assistante, Tél : +33 3 88 41 21 68, e-mail: [email protected]
INTERPRETES
Grégoire DEVICTOR
Nadine KIEFFER
Jean-Jacques PEDUSSAUD
Salim BENBRAHAM
Shaima REZK
ANNEXE III
réunion avec la délégation JORDANIENNE
Vendredi 11 avril 2014
1. Le Groupe de pilotage du Centre SATURN pour l’étude et l’analyse du temps judiciaire de la Commission européenne pour l’efficacité de la justice (CEPEJ) a tenu une réunion avec la délégation jordanienne le 11 avril 2014 après-midi à Strasbourg.
2. La réunion avait pour objectif de préciser la coopération avec la Jordanie afin de soutenir cette dernière dans l’amélioration des délais judiciaires et pouvoir finaliser le rapport des experts sur le sujet.
3. La délégation jordanienne souhaite coopérer davantage avec le CoE et obtenir plus de soutien de la part de ce dernier.
Un point de traduction est évoqué : il est préférable de parler de « conciliation court » (« cour de conciliation ») plutôt que de « magistrate court » (« cour de première instance »).
4. Jean-Paul JEAN, expert scientifique et président du GT-EVAL, a observé lors de sa visite en Jordanie, l’avancée des tribunaux en matière informatique. En revanche, il souligne deux problèmes concernant le système judiciaire jordanien aux niveaux:
- de l’enregistrement des affaires et,
- de l’exécution des décisions et de la notification.
Il expose que la difficulté majeure de cette coopération est le manque de données chiffrées fiables. La CEPEJ n’a pu obtenir les informations nécessaires pour les comparaisons sauf pour les 10 questions qui ont été posées au ministère de la justice.
5. Francesco DEPASQUALE et Jean-Paul JEAN remarquent le manque d’intégration des avocats dans le projet. Ils donnent comme exemple, en matière civile, l’organisation du débat contradictoire et l’échange de pièces avant le jugement. Si les avocats sont associés, les audiences ne sont pas renvoyées. Ils proposent d’avoir un correspondant de l’Association du Barreau.
6. Hazem AL-SMADI, Président du tribunal de Madaba, informe le Groupe de la réticence des avocats à coopérer.
Concernant les données, il affirme que celles de 2013 seront disponibles à la fin du mois d’avril.
7. La délégation jordanienne relève plusieurs points qui nécessiteraient un soutien en vue d’une amélioration des délais judiciaires :
i. Faire en sorte que les témoins soient entendus à temps
ii. S’assurer que tous les documents puissent être présentés
iii. Améliorer la prise en compte des coordonnées des justiciables car elles sont souvent erronées.
8. Jean-Paul JEAN, suite aux différents points soulevés par la délégation jordanienne, insiste sur le fait que la CEPEJ ne peut pas changer la législation. Plusieurs problèmes concernant la loi ont été relevés:
i. Pour la procédure civile, la preuve s’apporte par le témoin.
ii. Les procureurs ne sont pas assez nombreux.
Il affirme cependant que la CEPEJ peut informer, par écrit, le ministère de la justice des difficultés soulevées en utilisant notamment les données de la CEPEJ comme appui argumentaire. Une comparaison de la Jordanie avec d’autres pays pourrait être présentée.
Il propose également d’appuyer la notification par l’envoi d’un SMS aux justiciables. Une période d’essai pourrait être menée dans un tribunal ou même une chambre. Une comparaison des données entre 2012 et 2014 pourrait être établie. Si les résultats s’avèrent favorables, cette mesure pourra être étendue à l’ensemble des tribunaux jordaniens.
9. La délégation jordanienne en réponse à la CEPEJ, affirme que l’évaluation du système judiciaire jordanien est réalisée par des juges nommés par le pouvoir judiciaire.
La distribution des dossiers s’effectue informatiquement. Le président de la cour peut décider d’un transfert d’une affaire de manière exceptionnelle (raison médicale par exemple).
Des lois peuvent être amendées. C’est un processus long mais possible.
10. Le Groupe de la CEPEJ demande à la délégation jordanienne de fournir les données manquantes afin que Marco VELICOGNA puisse faire l’analyse. A la fin du rapport, des propositions issues de la réunion de ce jour seront formulées sur lesquelles la délégation pourra s’exprimer lors de la prochaine réunion en septembre.
A la demande de la délégation, le Groupe proposera une visite dans un tribunal européen pour un projet précis.
11. Le Secrétariat insiste auprès de la délégation jordanienne de l’importance de rendre utile une telle coopération et de ne prendre en compte que les éléments nécessitant un appui de la CEPEJ.