Strasbourg, 3 March 2017

CEPEJ-SATURN(2017)2

EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE

(CEPEJ)

Steering Group of the SATURN Centre for Judicial Time Management

(CEPEJ-SATURN)

21st meeting

Strasbourg, 2 and 3 March 2017

MEETING REPORT

Report prepared by the Secretariat

Directorate General I - Human Rights and Rule of Law

 

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 21^st meeting in Strasbourg on 2 and 3 March 2017. The agenda appears in Appendix I and the list of participants in Appendix II to this report.

 1. Appointment of the Chairperson of CEPEJ-SATURN for 2017

2.      Mr Jacques BÜHLER (Switzerland) announced that he was no longer in a position to continue working for the SATURN Centre because of other work engagements.He would continue, however, to be the member of CEPEJ in respect of Switzerland and take part in its co-operation programmes.

3.      The Group thanked Mr Jacques BÜHLER wholeheartedly for his outstanding professional and personal commitment over his ten years as Chair of the Group.

4.      Mr Giacomo OBERTO (Italy) was elected unanimously as the new Chair of the Group for 2017 and thanked the members for placing their trust in him.

2.  Information from the Chair, Group members and the Secretariat

5.      The Secretariat announced that the 2016 report on European judicial systems had been made public and would be available on the CEPEJ-STAT database. This proactive data presentation and monitoring system made it possible to draw on items of information which were not in the report, particularly with regard to timeframes for judicial proceedings in all judicial bodies.

6.      The modernisation of CEPEJ’s tools was continuing, as a new data collection instrument was currently being devised.In general, all of the recent work in this area, especially CEPEJ-STAT, was particularly well received within the Council of Europe, by the Committee of Ministers, and in the member states.

7.      The Secretariat announced the opening of a new cycle of activity for the Working Group on the Quality of Justice (GT-QUAL) following the adoption last year of important documents on quality indicators, cyberjustice and structural measures adopted by member states in addition to the internal remedies required by Article 13 of the ECHR.Among the topics of discussion would be electronic access to justice and communication, both within the judicial system and outside.

8.      Lastly, the Secretariat stated that the CEPEJ would continue its co-operation programmes with Albania and Kosovo*[1] and its partner states, namely the South Neighbourhood countries (Morocco, Tunisia, Jordan). These efforts in the intergovernmental sphere, particularly those with non-member states, had been welcomed by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe and the Committee of Ministers.

3.  Handbook for implementing CEPEJ tools

9.      The Secretariat began by describing the plan for the reorganisation of the CEPEJ Internet site based on the proposals made by Mr Jacques BÜHLER. The goal was to present the workings of the Committee in a more intuitive manner so as to raise the profile and accessibility of the information contained on the site. The process entailed beginning by making an inventory of existing documentation, identifying major reference documents then classifying them by family (guidelines, check lists, timeframes, etc.) to establish entry points matching the expectations of various types of target audience (professionals, researchers, general public). Indexing by search engines should be improved through the new Council of Europe on-line publication system (the Liferay platform).

10.    Secondly, after an in-depth discussion and the addition of a few improvements, the Group members approved the final version of the Handbook for implementing CEPEJ tools. This was mainly a means of introducing the reader to co-operation activities, aimed primarily at new experts. It had been decided to give this document a general scope, going beyond the confines of GT-SATURN. Consequently, after it was communicated to the other working groups, the Handbook would be submitted to the plenary meeting in June.

11.    Mr Jacques BÜHLER was tasked with sending the Secretariat a revised French version. The Secretariat would have this translated before it was presented at the next plenary meeting.

4. Towards European timeframes for judicial proceedings - implementation guide

12.    Mr Jacques BÜHLER presented various proposals relating to the regular updating of timeframes, particularly by continuing to refer to the network of pilot courts. Timeframes had been established on the basis of data collected from some of these courts and concerning very broad categories of case. This work could now be repeated with a broader array of courts and more specific categories of case.

13.    The Group decided to address the network of pilot courts again to update the existing timeframes. The CEPEJ members would also be called on, so as to involve other courts in the collection process and broaden the sample.

14.    The Group assigned the Secretariat the task of drawing up an Excel table to collect the relevant data.

5. SATURN Guidelines for Judicial Time Management

15.    With regard to the EUGMONT Appendix to the guidelines, the Secretariat presented an update consisting in the addition of a column on cases over two years old to example table 1 in Appendix I.

16.    The Group considered it useful to add, between examples III and IV in Appendix I, a section dealing with the age of pending cases and a table on civil and administrative cases and another for criminal cases.

17.    The revised EUGMONT Appendix would be drawn up by the Secretariat, submitted in writing to the Group and then presented at the next plenary meeting.

18.    As to the document “Comments and implementation examples”, the main changes made by the Secretariat were designed to bring the numbering into line with the new numbering of the priority guidelines.

19.    The Group agreed that there was a need to flesh the document out with recent examples.

20.    Therefore, the aim would be to present a plenary meeting with the existing structure of this document. The plenary meeting could then instruct the SATURN Centre to make regular updates.

21.    The existing document, as presented at this meeting, would be thoroughly reviewed by the Group members.

22.    At the same time, the Secretariat was asked to collect new examples through the various networks referred to (CEPEJ members, pilot courts).

23.    A draft consolidated document, made up of a document reviewed by the Group members and fleshed out with new examples would have to be produced for the next meeting of the Steering Group of the Saturn Centre and the pilot courts. This document would provide the basis for a workshop with the pilot courts.

24.    The consolidated document comprising the new examples could be presented at the plenary meeting of December 2017.

6. Recent ECtHR case law regarding the reasonable time criterion and possible follow-up by the CEPEJ

25.    Based on a search on key words relating to Articles 6§1 and 5 of the ECHR, Mr Jacques BÜHLER, summarised the state of the case-law of the European Court with regard to reasonable time, noting that there had been no turnaround until September 2016.

26.    Mr Nicolas REGIS, the scientific expert charged with updating the previous study (the Calvez/Régis report), pointed out that the current update of this document was carried out in 2011 on the basis of an analysis of 800 cases under terms of reference including an investigation of changes in case-law criteria, causes of delays and remedies by member states to the shortcomings noted, as detected by the Court.The methodology deployed at the time focused on the execution, and supervision of the execution, of the judgments of the European Court (the process before the Committee of Ministers), which distinguished it from the document “Structural measures adopted by some member states in addition to the effective domestic remedies required by Article 13 of the ECHR” produced by the CEPEJ-GT-QUAL, which dealt with matters from the viewpoint of member states and their good practices.  

 

27.    Mr Nicolas REGIS also emphasised that the impact of the KUDLA v. Poland[2] and  MIFSUD v. France[3] judgments on disputes concerning violations of Article 6§1 had been confirmed after his study in 2011. Since these judgments, which had recognised that the complaint of a reasonable time violation had been neutralised by a claim for compensation, the cases dealt with by the Court had shifted markedly towards an assessment of effective remedies (existence and effectiveness). The rationalisation of the Court’s work, brought about in particular by Protocol No. 14 (short proceedings before a single judge) or the reform of Article 47 (rejection of application for failure to comply with formalities) had also contributed to the very sharp decline in cases relating to reasonable time, which had become the fifth grounds of findings against states between 2011 and 2017 (having been the second previously). Consequently, even though the criteria for violations of Article 6§1 were still the same, the Court had no longer carried out a detailed analysis in its recent decisions of the underlying system or the reasons for which courts did not give decisions within a reasonable time. 

28.    The Group asked Mr Nicolas REGIS to update his previous study with a view to presenting an initial draft at the next meeting in September 2017.

7. Discussions about the Study on judicial timeframes in 2nd and highest instance courts (2014 data)

29.    Ms Julinda BEQUIRAJ, the scientific expert charged with drawing up a study on judicial timeframes in 2^nd instance courts and supreme courts, suggested that the structure presented at the last Group meeting should be simplified.

30.    The Group agreed to restrict the study to the period 2010-2014, in line with the last biennial evaluation report.

31.    The Group also agreed with the proposal to reorganise the order of the sections, starting from a general viewpoint and then moving towards more specific considerations. In all the chapters (except Chapter 4), the focus would initially be on indicators then on the changes over the period under consideration.

32.    The Group agreed that it was worth looking into appeal rates (from 1^st to 2^nd instance and from 2^nd to 3^rd instance) for, although this was not an indicator of quality it was likely to give a fuller overall picture of the organisation of the system.

33.    A provisional version of the revised document would be presented at the next meeting of the SATURN Centre in September, before being submitted to the member states for comments at the plenary meeting in December. The final version would be adopted at the first group meeting in 2018.

8. Discussion of new subjects for 2017 - 2018

34.    The discussion on the various proposals by the Group members resulted in the adoption of the subjects of the Group’s future activities.

Subject No. 1 “Study on the time limits mentioned in Article 5 of the ECHR”

35.    Mr Jon JOHNSEN (Norway), supported by the Secretariat, agreed to work on this subject, with the emphasis on two areas: collecting best practices and studying the European Court’s case-law on the subject.

36.    The Secretariat would produce an initial framework document for Mr Jon JOHNSEN by the end of April 2017 with a view to submission at the next Group meeting.

Subject No. 2“Information technologies in court hearing rooms – time-saving tools”

37.    Mr Francesco DEPASQUALE (Malta) was charged with this subject, which would include recording of hearings, teleconferencing and presentation of electronic evidence as potential time-saving features.

38.    The Secretariat would assist Mr Francesco DEPASQUALE in preparing a draft study, which could draw material from the specific evaluation report on the use of information technologies in European courts and the proceedings of the Conference on Cyberjustice in December 2016.

39.    The initial results of the Secretariat’s research should be sent to Mr Francesco DEPASQUALE in April-May 2017.

40.    Mr Francesco DEPASQUALE would draw on this to present a preliminary draft study at the next Group meeting.

Subject No. 3“Weighting and prioritisation of cases”

41.    Mr Francesco DEPASQUALE agreed to produce an initial framework document on this subject, identifying good practices in the area on the basis of various national approaches.

42.    The Secretariat would present Mr DEPASQUALE with its initial research on the subject by the end of May 2017.

43.    Mr Francesco DEPASQUALE would present the framework document at the next Group meeting with a view to a subsequent study to be conducted jointly with Mr Marco FABRI (Italy).

Subject No. 4“Timeframes: times required for various types of case (e.g.: uncontested divorce, contested divorce, etc.) or various types of procedure (summary, simplified, ordinary, etc.)”

44.    The activities relating to timeframes were decided on under item 5 of this report.

Subject No. 5“Consolidation of existing court management tools, working towards the establishment of court scoreboards”

45.    Based on the feedback of various CEPEJ experts following their assignments  (co-operation, court coaching), the Group felt it would be advisable to draw up a model scoreboard for courts, bringing together all the basic data concerning the running of courts.

46.    The Secretariat was instructed to work with Mr Marco FABRI to consolidate existing tools relating to presidents of courts through a model framework to be presented at the next Group meeting.

Subject No. 6“The impact of lawyers’ activities on the length of proceedings”

47.    Mr Noel RUBOTHAM (Ireland) undertook to do the preparatory work for a study on delays caused by the conduct of parties.The impact of different models of funding for legal aid could prove an interesting line of enquiry.

48.    For the next Group meeting, the Secretariat would prepare a preliminary study on existing instruments relating to lawyers in Council of Europe law so as to target more accurately the exact subject on which the GT-SATURN should be working.

Subject No. 7 “Document presenting CEPEJ tools”

49.    The Group felt that it would be useful to harmonise and update the PowerPoint presentations on CEPEJ tools, used in particular by experts when on co-operation assignments.

50.    A draft PowerPoint presentation would be prepared by the Secretariat with the help of Mr Marco FABBRI for the next Group meeting.  

51.    This draft would then be submitted to the other working groups so as to establish a complete model.

Subject No. 8 “The impact of alternative dispute settlement measures on the length of proceedings”

52.    Contact should be established with the Working Group on mediation so as to identify possible areas of investigation by the SATURN Centre not covered by this group.

53.    It could be proposed that a specific item on the subject be included on the agenda of the CEPEJ-GT-MED’s first meeting.

9. CEPEJ co-operation programmes

54.    Morocco: The Group was informed by the Secretariat and by the representative of the Ministry of Justice and Liberties of progress on the programme, particularly the increase in the number of pilot courts (13); the progressive growth in the role of Moroccan partners in the implementation of the programme (appointment of evaluators (“intégrateurs”) charged in particular with assessing the situation of courts); training courses; the launch of Morocco’s participation in the 2016-2018 CEPEJ evaluation cycle and the more widespread application of the pilot experiment with videoconferencing between prison authorities and judicial authorities to reduce the number of prisoners having to travel to hearings.

55.    Tunisia: Co-operation continued at a regular rhythm with ten pilot courts. 2017 would be mainly given over to training activities on judicial scoreboards, management of civil law hearings, and alternative dispute resolution. The programme, financed by the European Union, would end in December 2017. Discussions had begun on how co-operation would continue.

56.    Jordan: Co-operation had currently been set on hold pending news from the Ministry of Justice on the areas in which it wished to work with the CEPEJ.

57.    Albania: There were three main features to this second co-operation project: training of judges, lawyers and other law practitioners in the field and court coaching (scoreboards, training of presidents, etc.); assessment of the electronic system for collecting statistics and improvements to make data more reliable; and use of CEPEJ tools in the course of the current reform of the judicial system.

58.    Kosovo*: The working framework was identical to that with Albania. The recent presence of the CEPEJ showed that awareness-raising was still a concern. The pilot project conducted with the Basic Court of Pristina had led to the introduction of the concept of timeframes.Four other pilot courts would be activated at the end of March. Improving the reliability of judicial statistics was still the main goal. An initial detailed report on the judicial system was being drawn up.

59.    Azerbaijan and the Republic of Moldova: Both programmes were scheduled to end at the end of March but the possibility of an extension was being discussed. The pilot courts in Azerbaijan had not encountered any problems in implementing CEPEJ tools, which would be applied to all courts. The results of the pilot courts in the Republic of Moldova were still being assessed.

60.    New co-operation programmes (Latvia, Slovakia): The programme with Latvia had been signed on 1 March and included an assessment of the judicial system in terms of efficiency, quality, independence, new information technologies, etc. The programme with Slovakia was being finalised and would involve an evaluation stage and a stage during which CEPEJ tools would be implemented.

10. CEPEJ training programmes

61.    Malta: Mr Francesco Depasquale pointed out that the final report prepared by Mr Jacques BÜHLER in September 2016 had been forwarded to the Ministry of Justice and would serve as the basis for future government decisions.

62.    Greece (Thessaloniki): The CEPEJ’s visit had been considered very helpful. The work, which was still under way, was focused on administrative proceedings and the general question of case management.

63.    France (Avignon): This was an unusual project in that it consisted of implementing a tool to predict processing times in family law cases. Among the main aims was to convince potential litigants of the benefits of out-of-court settlements. On the basis of the report drawn up by Jacques BÜHLER and the President of the Court in September, the court had provided feedback in February 2017. A set of specifications had now been drawn up and the ultimate goal was to introduce the mechanism in all courts.

 

11. Other items

64.    Updating of Recommendation Rec(86)12 concerning measures to prevent and reduce the excessive workload in the courts: The Group noted that there had been no progress on the work in this area. The subject of the role of registrars in courts had been referred to by the European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ) during its discussions on its activities for 2017-2018.

65.    Review of the definitions used by CEPEJ Working Groups: The Secretariat announced that it planned to set up an ad hoc group comprising a member of each working group and to task it with identifying key terms, with a view to harmonising the vocabulary used by the CEPEJ. The French member of the CEPEJ, Laëtitia BRUNIN, would head this group, which would meet for the first time in Paris in 2017.

66.    Mr Noel RUBOTHAM was appointed to represent the Group during the review of CEPEJ definitions. Mr Marco FABRI would assist him as scientific expert.

ANNEX 1

AGENDA

1.         Opening of the meeting

2.         Appointment of the Chairperson of the CEPEJ-SATURN for 2017

3.         Information by the President, members of the Group and the Secretariat

4.         Handbook for implementing CEPEJ tools / Manuel de mise en oeuvre des outils CEPEJ

       Proposition of revision and harmonisation of the structure of the internet pages of the working groups of CEPEJ

       Final approval of the Handbook

5.         Towards European timeframes for judicial proceedings - implementation guide

       Forthcoming actions to update regularly the Guide

6.         SATURN Guidelines for Judicial Time Management –  Lignes directrices du Centre SATURN pour la gestion du temps judiciaire

7.         Recent ECtHR case law regarding the reasonable time criterion and possible follow-up by the CEPEJ

       Recent case law of the ECtHR - oral presentation by Jacques BUHLER

       Update of the Calvez / Regis report (Nicolas Regis)

8.         Discussions about the the Study on judicial timeframes in 2nd and highest instance (data 2014) Scientific expert: Julinda Bequiraj

9.         Discussion of new working subjects for 2017 - 2018

10.        Co-operation programmes / Programmes de coopération

·         Morocco

·         Tunisia

·         Jordan

·         Albania

·         Kosovo*

·         PCF (Azerbaijan; Republic of Moldova)

·         New cooperation activities starting in 2017 (Latvia, Slovakia)

 

11.        Court coaching programmes

·         Malta

·         Greece (Thessaloniki)

·         France (Avignon)

12.        Other items / Divers

·         Updating of Recommendation Rec(86)12 concerning measures to prevent and reduce the excessive workload in the courts

·         Review of the definitions used by CEPEJ Working Groups

ANNEX II

List of participants

MEMBERS/ MEMBRES

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

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

Ivan CRNČEC, Assistant Minister of Justice, ZAGREB, CROATIA

Apologised / Excusé

Francesco DEPASQUALE, Magistrate, Legal Advisor to the Director General, Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs, VALLETTA, MALTA

Gerassimos FOURLANOS, Vice-President of the Supreme Civil and Penal Court, ATHENS, GREECEApologised / Excusé

Ivana NINČIĆ, Consultant, Ministry of Justice, BELGRADE, SERBIA

Giacomo OBERTO, Magistrat, Tribunal de Grande Instance, TURIN, ITALIE

Noel RUBOTHAM, Head of Reform and Development, Courts Service, DUBLIN, IRELAND

Georg STAWA, Secretary General of the Austrian Ministry of Justice, Federal Ministry of Justice, VIENNA, AUSTRIA

(President of the CEPEJ /Président de la CEPEJ)

Scientific ExpertS / Experts scientifiques

Julinda Beqiraj, Associate Senior Research Fellow in the Rule of Law, Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM

Marco FABRI, Director, Research Institute on Judicial Systems, National Research Council (IRSIG-CNR), BOLOGNA, ITALY

Jon T. JOHNSEN, Professor in Law, Faculty of law, University of Oslo, OSLO, Norway

Nicolas REGIS, Magistrat, Cour d’Appel de Colmar, COLMAR, FRANCE

INVITED DELEGATIONS / DELEGATIONSINVITEES

ALBANIA / ALBANIE

Ornella NAQELLARI, TIRANA President of the Court of first instance in Lezha

 

MOROCCO / MAROC

Hajiba BOUKHARI, Membre élue, Conseil Supérieur du Pouvoir Judiciaire, RABAT

Karim HARROUCHE, Magistrat détaché au Secrétariat Général, Ministère de la Justice et des libertés, RABAT,

TUNISIA / TUNISIE

Mongi CHALGOUM, Président du Tribunal de première instance de Zaghouan, ZAGHOUAN

Fatma MKAOUAR, Présidente du Tribunal de première instance de Nabeu, NABEU

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, LYON FRANCE

EUROPEAN COMMISSION / COMMISSION EUROPEENNE : Apologised / Excusée

***

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

E-mail : [email protected]

Stéphane LEYENBERGER, Executive Secretary of the CEPEJ / Secrétaire exécutif de la CEPEJ, Tel: +33 (0)3 88 41 34 12, e-mail: [email protected]

Yannick MENECEUR, Administrator / Administrateur, Tél: +33 (0)3 90 21 53 59, e-mail : [email protected]

Annette SATTEL, Communication, Tél: +33 (0)3 88 41 39 04, e-mail: [email protected]

Elisabeth HEURTEBISE, Assistant/Assistante, Secretariat of the CEPEJ / Secrétariat de la CEPEJ, e-mail: [email protected]  

INTERPRETERS / INTERPRETES

Julia TANNER

Chloé CHENETIER

Jean-Jacques PEDUSSAUD