PROJET - NE PAS DISTRIBUER
23 November 2006 CEPEJ-GT-MED (2006) 7
9 February23 7 November 8 September25 4 November/novembre January / 25 janvier16 JanuaryMarch February novembre septembre févrierjanviermarsfévrier 200654
WORKING PARTY 2004
OF
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ-GT 2004)
GROUPE DE TRAVAIL 2004
DE
LA COMMISSION EUROPEENNE POUR L’EFFICACITE DE LA JUSTICE
(CEPEJ-GT 2004)
EUROPEAN EUROPEAN COMMISSION ON THE EFFICIENCY OF jUSTICE (CEPEJ)
Working GROUP COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
(CEPEJ)
ON
EVALUATION JUDICIAL SYSTEMS
WORKING GROUP ON COMMISSION EUROPENNE SUR L’EFFICACITE DE LA JUSTICE (CEPEJ)
GROUPE DE TRAVAIL
SUR
L’EVALUATION DES SYSTEMES JUDICIAIRE mEdiationS
(CEPEJ-GT-EVALGT-MED)
1st meeting /2nd meeting,
Strasbourg, 20-2223 - 25 NovemberFebruary / février 20065
Room /Salle 814 17
§ At its second meeting, in the light of a study prepared by a scientific expert assessing the impact in the member states of Council of Europe recommendations on mediation, the CEPEJ-GT-MED drew up draft guidelines for improved application of the recommendations on mediation in civil and family matters.
§ The CEPEJ-GT-MED proposes that the CEPEJ includes in its programme of activites for 2007 an additional meeting of the group, so that it can complete its work.
1. The Working Group on Mediation(CEPEJ-GT-MED) of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) held its second meeting in Strasbourg from 20 to 22 November 2006.
2. The working group agreed to change Chair for each meeting and designated Mr Rimantas SIMAITIS (Lithuaniah) to chair the second meeting.
3. The agenda and the list of participants are reproduced in Appendices I and II to the present report.
I. Information from the secretariat
4. The Secretariat welcomed Mr Jeremy TAGG (United Kingdom), who had been unable to attend the first meeting of the working group.
5. The Secretariat briefly presented the 2006 edition of the report "European judicial systems", which had been published on 5 October. Since it was difficult to obtain coherent statistical information on the subject, the report contained only a short section on alternative dispute resolution (ADR), including a single table presenting the number of mediation procedures in 2004 in the sixteen states which had been able to provide precise data.
3rd Meeting / 3ème réunion
8-10 November / novembre 2004
Palais de l’Europe - Room / Salle 15
DRAFT AGENDA / PROJET D’ORDRE DU JOUR
1. Election of the Chairman
Election du/de la Président(e)
2. Adoption of the agenda
3. Information by the Secretariat
Information du Secrétariat
II. Report on the impact of recommendations on mediation
6. To fulfil its terms of reference which, inter alia, assigned it the task of assessing the impact in the member states of Committee of Ministers recommendations concerning mediation, since its first meeting the CEPEJ-CT-MED had:
§ drawn up a questionnaire, divided into four parts corresponding to the four recommendations concerned,[1] which asked respondents to describe and also comment on practical implementation of the principles set out in the recommendations (see document CEPEJ-GT-MED (2006) 3);
§ distributed the questionnaire in the home countries of the experts participating in the CEPEJ-GT-MED (the Czech Republic, Germany, Lithuania, Portugal, Slovenia, the United Kingdom) and in ten other states regarded as representative in mediation matters (Armenia, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Finland, France, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Sweden);
§ asked the members of the CEPEJ-GT-MED to co-ordinate replies for their own countries; all the replies were nonetheless received by the Secretariat;
§ in view of the large number of replies, appointed MrJulien LHUILLIER, a researcher at the Law Faculty in Nancy, as scientific expert responsible for preparing a report analysing the states' replies to the questionnaire, with a view to identifying tangible measures relevant to the impact of the recommendations.
7. Mr Julien LHUILLIER presented his report entitled "Assessment of the impact of Council of Europe recommendations concerning mediation" to the working group (see document CEPEJ-GT-MED (2006)2). The report was in two parts: (i) how the questionnaire was filled in, consisting in a country by country study of the replies, and (ii) evaluation of the questionnaire, which was divided into four parts corresponding to the four recommendations. For each recommendation, firstly, the impact at national level was gauged, in terms of both knowledge and use of the recommendation as such and tangible application of the principles set out in it and, secondly, measures were proposed to publicise and enhance the visibility of the legal instruments and to improve implementation of the, albeit very general, principles governing mediation set out therein.
8. The scientific expert said that, although almost all the states concerned had responded, it should be noted that out of the roughly sixty duly completed questionnaires:
§ only four states had systematically answered all four questionnaires;
§ it was not always mediators themselves who answered the questions;
§ many questions were left blank;
§ in very few cases the same questionnaire was filled in several times for the same state, although such an approach might have been adopted in view of the diversity of the backgrounds of the persons involved in mediation;
§ the majority of the replies concerned mediation in civil matters and family mediation and the questionnaire on alternatives to litigation between administrative authorities and private parties met with very little response;
§ no replies were received in response to the posting of the questionnaire on the CEPEJ's web-site.
9. In view of these findings the expert made proposals for improvements in the methodology to be used for impact assessments such as this. They included proposed changes to the questionnaires sent to states.
10. Concerning mediation procedures as such, the expert pointed out that, although legal professionals generally had a good knowledge of their functioning, the same could not be said of the population at large and of users of the judicial system, who were fairly ignorant about them and as a result appeared to place greater confidence in traditional judicial procedures.
11. Even in states where mediation was a habitual practice, the expert noted that some aspects continued to pose problems:
§ financing of mediation (sources, methods, available resources) and its implications particularly for raising awareness of such ADR solutions,
§ the real cost of mediation to users and the state's role in promoting mediation from this angle, notably by introducing a legal aid system equivalent to that existing for traditional judicial procedures,
§ the lack of standard definitions for certain concepts such as children's best interests and confidentiality,
§ the precise role of judges vis-à-vis the parties with regard to mediation procedures,
§ in general, the very low awareness among members of the judiciary and lawyers of mediation's advantages over traditional judicial procedure in certain specific cases, and hence the need for a change of attitude,
§ the lack of a strict, joint code of good practice and the resulting need for closer supervision of the profession,
§ the significant disparities between states with regard to initial and in-service training of mediators in Europe,
§ the lack of any real standard status for mediated agreements,
§ the uncertainty surrounding international mediation, although it is mentioned in the recommendations.
12. The working group applauded the work done by Mr LHUILLIER to prepare this very complete report, which would doubtless be extremely useful not only for the current activities of the CEPEJ-GT-MED but also for any future work on mediation, since it gave a full picture of the situation in some fifteen member states.
13. Following an exchange of views the working group concluded that all the above problems were closely linked and there was scope for a number of not insignificant forms of action, such as setting up a European centre for the training of mediators or proposing amendments to the Council of Europe's existing instruments. It nonetheless decided that, to fulfil its terms of reference while seeking to build on the achievements of the existing recommendations, which aimed to encourage recourse to mediation, it would initially confine itself to drawing up draft guidelines to ensure more effective application of the recommendations on mediation in civil matters and on family mediation (Rec (98)1 and Rec (2002)10).
14. The aim of these guidelines was to offer national authorities in charge of mediation and the various operators active in the mediation sphere practical advice on solving any difficulties encountered in implementing the provisions of the two recommendations concerned, notably on account of their too general nature. It was agreed that, while constituting the foundation for the group's work on the guidelines, the scientific expert's report would be presented separately, although the cover page of each document would include a link to the other document.
15. The working group decided to adopt a structure different from that used in the questionnaire, which moreover followed the structure of the recommendations, and to divide the document into three parts, intended to address all of the problems noted: (I) Availability (support for mediation projects offered by the member states / the role of the judiciary / the role of lawyers / the quality of mediation procedures / mediators' qualifications / codes of good practice / international mediation); (II) Accessibility (mediation's cost to users / suspension of limitation periods); (III) Awareness-raising (targeting the general public / users/ the judiciary / lawyers).
16. At the end of the meeting the CEPEJ-GT-MED adopted provisional draft guidelines for submission at the 8th plenary meeting of the CEPEJ, to be held from 6 to 8 December 2006 (see document CEPEJ (2006) 17) PROV).
17. In view of the work still to be done the CEPEJ should be asked to hold an additional meeting of the working group in 2007 to enable it to complete the following tasks:
§ fleshing out the guidelines already produced in order to add other tangible measures, which the members of the group might draw up in time for the next meeting,
§ preparing guidelines on mediation in penal matters and on alternatives to litigation between administrative authorities and private parties, following the same structure as that used for civil and family mediation.
18. On this last point, the working group decided forthwith that, subject to the CEPEJ's agreement to hold a meeting in 2007 and the availability of the necessary funds, Mr LHUILLIER would prepare preliminary draft guidelines on mediation in penal matters and Ms OLIVEIRA (Portugal) those on mediation in the administrative field. The CEPEJ-GT-MED also hoped that, if its work continued, a criminal law specialist would be able to join the group since its present members were all experts in civil or family mediation.
19. It asked Ivana BORZOVA (Czech Republic), who was also a member of the CEPEJ, to present the work in progress within the CEPEJ-GT-MED at the next plenary meeting of the CEPEJ.
20. The working group also:
§ asked the scientific expert to make a few amendments to his draft report and to set out the comments on methodology in a separate document,
§ instructed the secretariat to examine the possibility of setting up a page specific to mediation on the CEPEJ's web-site, in view of the large amount of useful information already gathered on the subject.
21. Mention was also made of a proposal to set up a task force to assist those involved in mediation in implementing the existing legal instruments and principles. This could take the form of a help line, a newsletter or a forum, through which the members of the working group could help mediators translate the general principles on mediation into tangible, directly applicable measures.
PROJET - NE PAS DISTRIBUER
Appendix I
3rd Meeting / 3ème réunion
8-10 November / novembre 2004
Palais de l’Europe - Room / Salle 15
DRAFT AGENDA / PROJET D’ORDRE DU JOUR
1. Election of the Chairman
Election du/de la Président(e)
1.1. 2. Adoption of the agenda
/Adoption de l’ordre du jour
2. 3. Information by the Secretariat
Information du Secrétariat
3. Presentation by Mr Julien LHUILLIER (France), scientific expert, of his report analysing the replies to the questionnaire concerning mediation
Présentation par M. Julien LHUILLIER (France), expert scientifique, de son rapport concernant l’analyse des réponses au questionnaire sur la médiation
4. Preparation of a draft report containing the assessment of the impact of the existing Recommendations, guidelines and specific measures aimed at ensuring an effective implementation of the existing Recommendations
Préparation d’un projet de rapport présentant l’étude d’impact des Recommandations existantes, des lignes directrices et des mesures spécifiques visant à assurer une application effective des recommandations existantes
ss 25. Analysis of the work of other institutions on mediation and possible co-operation
Analyse des travaux des autres institutions concernant la médiation et coopération possible
Direct 4. follow-up Implementation timeframes of proceedings
Mise en œuvre de procédure
Preparation of concrete measures concerning these lines of action
Elaboration des mesures concrètes concernant ces lignes d’action
Working document / Document de travail
Comments from Member States on the Framework Programme
Commentaires des Etats Membres sur le Programme cadre
CEPEJ-TF-DEL(2005)1
tool ais of
6. Setting-up of a network of pilot courts
Mise en place du Réseau de tribunaux-référents
7
tEvaluating JS
Specific analysis of the data of the “Report on European judicial systems 2002” regarding judicial timeframes, to guide orient the work of the Task Force
Revision of the Scheme for evaluating judicial system as regards judicial timeframes
Analyse spécifique des données du “Rapport sur les systèmes judiciaires européens 2002” concernant les délais de procédure, de manière à orienter les travaux de la Task Force
Révision de la Grille pour l’évaluation des systèmes judiciaires en matière de délais de procédure
Révision de la Grille pour l’évaluation des systèmes judiciaires en matière de délais de procédure
ssFramework Programme: “A new objective for judicial systems:
the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe”
Programme cadre: “Un nouvel objectif pour les systèmes judiciaires:
le traitement de chaque affaire dans un délai optimum et prévisible ”
CEPEJ (2004) 19 Rev
Report on European judicial systems 2002
Rapport sur les systèmes judiciaires européens 2002
CEPEJ(2004)30 Final
7
Draft Projet de
CEPEJ(GT-EVAL(2005) 6Information documents/Documents d’information
7. Setting-up of a network of pilot courts
Mise en place du Réseau de tribunaux-référents
Report « Evaluating judicial systems »
Implementation of a communication strategy to ensure the appropriate advertisement of the report / mise en place d’une stratégie de communication assurant la publicité appropriée du rapport
Organisation of the Conference aiming at presenting the report / Organisation de la Conférence de présentation du rapport
Working document/Document de travail
CEPEJ(2004)30 Final
5. a. Revise the Pilot-Scheme in view of collecting the 2004 data
ØSelection of the Lines of Action for 2005 / Sélection des lignes d’action pour 2005
ØPreparation of draft terms of reference for the Working Group in charge of the delays/ Préparation du projet de mandat du Groupe de travail chargé des délais
ØStrategies on the consultation and the publicity concerning the framework programme/ Stratégies sur la consultation et la publicité concernant le programme-cadre
Working documents/documents de travail
Framework-Programme / Programme-Cadre
CEPEJ (2004) 19 Rev
Draft terms of reference of the Working Group for 2005 /
Projet de mandat du Groupe de travail pour 2005
4.Tools for communication of CEPEJ: exploring the modalities which would make it possible for the CEPEJ to play a role of clearing house for the relevant documents regarding the efficiency of justice, in particular through its internet Web site/Outils de communication de la CEPEJ: réflexion sur les modalités qui permettraient à la CEPEJ de remplir une fonction de "clearing house" des documents pertinents en matière d'efficacité de la justice en particulier grâce à l'utilisation de son Site Internet
Working documents/documents de travail
Setting up the "CEPEJ Files/Mise en place des "Dossiers de la CEPEJ
CEPEJ-BU (2004) 3
Some guiding reflections on the operation of the CEPEJ
CEPEJ (2004) 26
5.Draft Evaluation Report of Judicial Systems 2002/Projet de Rapport d'évaluation des systèmes judiciaires 2002
Working documents/documents de travail
Report on the CEPEJ evaluation scheme by Roland Eshuis (Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek en Documentatie Centrum Ministry of Justice, The Netherlands)
CEPEJ-GT (2004) 1 rev.
(English only)
Comments on survey
CEPEJ-GT (2004) 2
(English only)
Questions and answers
CEPEJ-GT (2004) 3
(English only)
Draft terms of reference of the Working Group for 2005 /
Projet de mandat du Groupe de travail pour 2005
3.Any other business/Divers
3.
3.
3.Background documents/Documents de référence
3. Report of the 2nd meeting CEPEJ-GT 2004/Rapport de la 2ème réunion du CEPEJ-GT 2004
3.CEPEJ (2004) 24
3.
3.Report of the 3rdmeeting of the CEPEJ /Rapport de la 3ème réunion de la CEPEJ
3.CEPEJ (2004) 20
3.
3.Report of the Meeting of the national correspondents responsible for collecting data under the Pilot Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems/ Compte-rendu de la Réunion des Correspondants nationaux chargés de la collecte des données concernant la Grille-Pilote pour l’évaluation des systèmes judiciaires
3.CEPEJ (2004) 25
3.
3.Pilot-Scheme of evaluating judicial system / Grille-pilote d’évaluation des systèmes judiciaires
3.CEPEJ (2003) 36 Addendum I
3.
3.CEPEJ- Activity Programme 2004 / Programme d’activité 2004 de la CEPEJ
3.CEPEJ (2003) 29 Rev
Working document/document de travail
Pilote Scheme for evaluating judicial systems / Grille-Pilote pour l’évaluation des systemes judicidiares
1. 2004 data collection / Collecte des données 2004
To draw up a list of essential data for evaluation purposes and to make recommendations so t hat States organise their statistics collection systems / Etablir une liste des données pour l’évaluation et la formulation des recommandations afin de permettre aux Etats d’organiser leur systeme de collecte statistique
6.6. Possible future Elaboration of the wworking plan for of the CEPEJ-GT-MEDGT-EVAL
Travaux futurs éventuels du / Elaboration du Pplan de travail du CEPEJ-GT-EVGT-MEDAL pour 2005
§ Possible involvement of scientific experts / obsevers in the work of the Task Force
§ Next meetings: 14-16 September 2005 / 7-9 November 2005
§
§ Next meetings:
Future meetings / Réunions futures : 68 March / mars /
Possible implication d’experts scientifiques / observateurs dans les traaux de la Task Force
Réunions futures : 14-16 septembre 2005 / 7-9 novembre 2005
77. Other business
Questions diverses
Working documents/Documents de travail
Questionnaire on mediation/Questionnaire sur la médiation
CEPEJ-GT-MED (2006)3
Replies from States to the questionnaire/Réponses des Etats au questionnaire
CEPEJ-GT-MED (2006) 6…
Draft report by Mr J. Lhuillier/Projet de rapport par M. J. Lhuillier
CEPEJ-GT-MED (2006) 5…
Report of the 1st meeting of the CEPEJ-GT-MED/Rapport de la 1ère réunion du CEPEJ-GT-MED
CEPEJ-GT-MED (2006) 4
List of Recommendations of the Committee of Ministers on mediation/
Liste des Recommandations du Comité des Ministres concernant la médiation
CEPEJ-GT-MED (2006) 1
GeneralInformation documents / Documents d’informationgénéraux
Report of the 74th plenary meeting / Rapport de la 74ème réunion plénière
CEPEJ (20064) 7 33
-BU3
Programme of activities 2006/Programme d’activités 2006
CEPEJ (2005) 9
Medium Term Activity Programme/Programme d’activités à moyen terme
CEPEJ (2005) 10
Relevant Council of Europe Resolutions and Recommendations
in the field of efficiency and fairness of justice/
Résolutions et Recommandations pertinentes du Conseil de l’Europe
dans le domaine de l’efficacité et de l’équité de la justice
CEPEJ (2003) 7 rev
Resolution Res(2002)12 establishing the European Commission for the efficiency of justice (CEPEJ)/
Résolution Res(2002)12 établissant la Commission européenne pour l’efficacité de la justice (CEPEJ)
CEPEJ/GENERAL (2003) 1 rev.
Rules of procedure of the CEPEJ/Règles de procédure de la CEPEJ
CEPEJ/GENERAL (2003)3
Draft Activity Programme 2005 / Projet de Programme d’activités 2005
CEPEJ(2004)27 REV 3
6. Other business / Questions diverses
ss 24. Implementation timeframes of proceedings
Mise en œuvre de procédure
Preparation of concrete measures concerning these lines of action
Elaboration des mesures concrètes concernant ces lignes d’action
Working document / Document de travail
Comments from Member States on the Framework Programme
Commentaires des Etats Membres sur le Programme cadre
CEPEJ-TF-DEL(2005)1
tool ais of
6. Setting-up of a network of pilot courts
Mise en place du Réseau de tribunaux-référents
7
tEvaluating JS
Specific analysis of the data of the “Report on European judicial systems 2002” regarding judicial timeframes, to guide orient the work of the Task Force
Revision of the Scheme for evaluating judicial system as regards judicial timeframes
Analyse spécifique des données du “Rapport sur les systèmes judiciaires européens 2002” concernant les délais de procédure, de manière à orienter les travaux de la Task Force
Révision de la Grille pour l’évaluation des systèmes judiciaires en matière de délais de procédure
Révision de la Grille pour l’évaluation des systèmes judiciaires en matière de délais de procédure
ssFramework Programme: “A new objective for judicial systems:
the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe”
Programme cadre: “Un nouvel objectif pour les systèmes judiciaires:
le traitement de chaque affaire dans un délai optimum et prévisible ”
CEPEJ (2004) 19 Rev
Report on European judicial systems 2002
Rapport sur les systèmes judiciaires européens 2002
CEPEJ(2004)30 Final
7
Draft Projet de
CEPEJ(GT-EVAL(2005) 6
Report « Evaluating judicial systems »
Implementation of a communication strategy to ensure the appropriate advertisement of the report / mise en place d’une stratégie de communication assurant la publicité appropriée du rapport
Organisation of the Conference aiming at presenting the report / Organisation de la Conférence de présentation du rapport
Working document/Document de travail
CEPEJ(2004)30 Final
5. a. Revise the Pilot-Scheme in view of collecting the 2004 data
ØSelection of the Lines of Action for 2005 / Sélection des lignes d’action pour 2005
ØPreparation of draft terms of reference for the Working Group in charge of the delays/ Préparation du projet de mandat du Groupe de travail chargé des délais
ØStrategies on the consultation and the publicity concerning the framework programme/ Stratégies sur la consultation et la publicité concernant le programme-cadre
Working documents/documents de travail
Framework-Programme / Programme-Cadre
CEPEJ (2004) 19 Rev
Draft terms of reference of the Working Group for 2005 /
Projet de mandat du Groupe de travail pour 2005
4.Tools for communication of CEPEJ: exploring the modalities which would make it possible for the CEPEJ to play a role of clearing house for the relevant documents regarding the efficiency of justice, in particular through its internet Web site/Outils de communication de la CEPEJ: réflexion sur les modalités qui permettraient à la CEPEJ de remplir une fonction de "clearing house" des documents pertinents en matière d'efficacité de la justice en particulier grâce à l'utilisation de son Site Internet
Working documents/documents de travail
Setting up the "CEPEJ Files/Mise en place des "Dossiers de la CEPEJ
CEPEJ-BU (2004) 3
Some guiding reflections on the operation of the CEPEJ
CEPEJ (2004) 26
5.Draft Evaluation Report of Judicial Systems 2002/Projet de Rapport d'évaluation des systèmes judiciaires 2002
Working documents/documents de travail
Report on the CEPEJ evaluation scheme by Roland Eshuis (Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek en Documentatie Centrum Ministry of Justice, The Netherlands)
CEPEJ-GT (2004) 1 rev.
(English only)
Comments on survey
CEPEJ-GT (2004) 2
(English only)
Questions and answers
CEPEJ-GT (2004) 3
(English only)
Draft terms of reference of the Working Group for 2005 /
Projet de mandat du Groupe de travail pour 2005
3.Any other business/Divers
3.
3.
3.Background documents/Documents de référence
3. Report of the 2nd meeting CEPEJ-GT 2004/Rapport de la 2ème réunion du CEPEJ-GT 2004
3.CEPEJ (2004) 24
3.
3.Report of the 3rd meeting of the CEPEJ / Rapport de la 3ème réunion de la CEPEJ
3.CEPEJ (2004) 20
3.
3.Report of the Meeting of the national correspondents responsible for collecting data under the Pilot Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems/ Compte-rendu de la Réunion des Correspondants nationaux chargés de la collecte des données concernant la Grille-Pilote pour l’évaluation des systèmes judiciaires
3.CEPEJ (2004) 25
3.
3.Pilot-Scheme of evaluating judicial system / Grille-pilote d’évaluation des systèmes judiciaires
3.CEPEJ (2003) 36 Addendum I
3.
3.CEPEJ- Activity Programme 2004 / Programme d’activité 2004 de la CEPEJ
3.CEPEJ (2003) 29 Rev
Working document/document de travail
Pilote Scheme for evaluating judicial systems / Grille-Pilote pour l’évaluation des systemes judicidiares
1. 2004 data collection / Collecte des données 2004
To draw up a list of essential data for evaluation purposes and to make recommendations so t hat States organise their statistics collection systems / Etablir une liste des données pour l’évaluation et la formulation des recommandations afin de permettre aux Etats d’organiser leur systeme de collecte statistique
6. Elaboration of the working plan for the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL / Elaboration du Pplan de travail du CEPEJ-GT-EVAL pour 2005
§ Possible involvement of scientific experts / obsevers in the work of the Task Force
§ Next meetings: 14-16 September 2005 / 7-9 November 2005
§
§ Next meetings:
Future meetings / Réunions futures: 68 March / mars /
Possible implication d’experts scientifiques / observateurs dans les traaux de la Task Force
Réunions futures : 14-16 septembre 2005 / 7-9 novembre 2005
7.
Appendix II
List of participants / Liste des participants
Experts
Nina BETETTO, Supreme Court Judge, The Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia, Ljubljana, SLOVENIA
Ivana BORZOVÁ, Head, Department of Civil Supervision, Ministry of Justice, Prague, CZECH REPUBLIC
Peter ESCHWEILER, President Judge, Regional Higher Court of Appeal, Francfurt am Main, GERMANY
Maria da Conceição OLIVEIRA, Mediator and Lawyer, Lisbon, PORTUGAL
Rimantas SIMAITIS, Attorney at Law, Vilnius, LITHUANIA, Chair of the CEPEJ-GT-MED / Président du CEPEJ-GT-MED
Jeremy TAGG, Head of ADR Policy, HMCS, London, UNITED KINGDOM
***
Scientific expert
Julien LHUILLIER, ATER, Faculté de droit de Nancy, FRANCE
***
EUROPEAN COMMISSION/COMMISSION EUROPEENNE : Apologised / Excusée
***
SECRETARIAT
Directorate General I - Legal Affairs / Direction Générale I - Affaires Juridiques
Fax: +33 3 88 41 37 43
e-mail: [email protected]
Stéphane LEYENBERGER, Secretary of the CEPEJ / Secrétaire de la CEPEJ, Tel : +33 3 88 41 28 41, 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]
Jean-Pierre GEILLER, Documentation / Documentation Tel : +33 3 88 41 22 27, e-mail : [email protected]
Elisabeth HEURTEBISE, Assistante, Tel : +33 3 88 41 35 54, Fax : +33 3 88 41 37 45, e-mail: [email protected]
Interpreters / Interprètes
Corinne Mc GEORGE
Jennifer GRIFFITH
[1] (1) Questionnaire on family mediation, (2) Questionnaire on mediation in civil matters, (3) Questionnaire on mediation in penal matters, (4) Questionnaire on alternatives to litigation between administrative authorities and private parties