Strasbourg, 26 May 2008
CCJE-BU(2008)2
Consultative Council of European Judges (CcjE)
3rd meeting of the Bureau - Lisbon, 23 April 2008 - meeting report
1. The Bureau of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) held its 3rd meeting at the High Council for the Judiciary in Lisbon (Portugal) on 23 March 2008. As Ms Julia Laffranque, the CCJE Chair, was unable to attend the meeting, it was chaired by Mr Orlando Afonso (Portugal), Vice-Chair of the CCJE.
2. The following Bureau members were also present:
§ Mr Alain Lacabarats (France)
§ Mr Gerhard Reissner (Austria)
Exceptionally, Mr Raffaelle Sabato (Italy) attended the meeting.
3. The agenda is set out in the Appendix.
1. Information provided by the CCJE Chair and Secretariat
4. The Bureau wholeheartedly thanked Mr Orlando Afonso for the excellent organisation of the CCJE-GT meeting (22 and 23 March) and of the Conference on Judicial Timing and the Quality of Decisions (24 March) and asked him to pass on its warm thanks in particular to Mr António Ferreira Girão, Vice-President of the High Council for the Judiciary and his assistant, Ms Mafalda Chaveiro, to Mr Luís Noronha Nascimento, President of the Supreme Court, and to Ms Filomena Lima, Vice-President of the Lisbon Court of Appeal, for the excellent welcome given to the CCJE delegation.
2. Preparation of the 15th meeting of the CCJE-GT (Tartu, Estonia – 16-18 June 2008)
5. The Secretariat informed the participants that on Wednesday 18 June there would be a conference organised by the Supreme Court of Estonia, which would give the CCJE-GT members the opportunity to discuss “the quality of judicial decisions and evaluation thereof” and to exchange examples of good practice with Estonian judges.
6. The discussions would concern the following issues:
- Is it possible to evaluate the quality of judicial decisions?
- Does quality justice necessarily mean efficient justice?
- What criteria should be used to evaluate the quality of judicial decisions?
- What exactly is a high-quality judicial decision?
7. The Secretariat pointed out that, pursuant to its terms of reference, the working group was expected to focus on the specific theme of “the quality of judicial decisions” and not only on the more general subject of the “quality of justice”. The European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) was working on the latter and had chosen not to address the issue of the quality of judicial decisions pending the Opinion of the CCJE.
3. Examination of the situation in member states
Serbia
8. Ms Spomenka Zaric, member of the CCJE in respect of Serbia and member of the CCJE-GT, presented the main thrusts of the judicial reform taking place in Serbia, as a result of which the judges currently in office might not be re-elected or re-appointed. This question had also been put to the Venice Commission and other international bodies.
9. The Bureau noted that, even if the Association of Serbian Judges had already put this question to the CCJE in November 2007, it would still be a good idea for the CCJE to discuss it, given that Serbia was waiting to see what follow-up would be given to the judicial reform after the parliamentary elections in May 2008.
10. In view of the threat hanging over the judges, the Bureau decided to set up a Task Force to address this specific problem (see paragraphs 16 et. seq. below). The Bureau could also consider preparing a joint Opinion with the Venice Commission and instructed the Secretariat to contact the Secretariat of the Venice Commission on this subject.
Poland
11. The Secretary General of the Council of Europe had received a letter from the Helsinki Human Rights Foundation, informing him that it was concerned about the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary in Poland, following the Polish President’s unjustified refusal to appoint 9 judges, despite the endorsement of the Polish National Council of Justice. The Secretary General of the Council of Europe had decided to bring this matter before the CCJE, which had questioned its Polish member on this point.
12. Ms Irena Piotrowska, member of the CCJE in respect of Poland, said that this was a conflict of constitutional interpretation between the National Council of Justice (which claimed that the Polish Constitution did not authorise the President of the Republic to ask for a fresh assessment of the candidates nominated by the National Council of Justice) and the President of the Republic, which had been brought before the competent court. The Bureau decided to await the court’s decision before deciding what action to take.
Romania
13. The Secretariat told the Bureau that Ms Lidia Barbalescu, President of the Romanian High Council for the Judiciary, had sent a letter to the Chair of the CCJE, asking for the CCJE’s help in securing information on the situation in member states with regard to the extra-judicial activities of judges. The Romanian HCJ sought this information because it wished to propose legislative amendments to reduce such activities. The Secretariat said that it had submitted the request to the CCJE members and that a number of states had provided information on their rules regarding the extra-judicial activities of judges. The Bureau asked the Secretariat to prepare a reply setting out this information and drawing attention to Opinion No. 1 of the CCJE.
Portugal
14. The Bureau took note of the declaration of the “Forum Permanente Justiça Independente”, which had been distributed and presented to members of the Working Group at its 14th meeting and in which the Portuguese judges expressed concern at the fact that the judicial reforms planned by the Portuguese authorities did not take account of the CCJE’s opinions. It decided to publish the Declaration on the CCJE website.
Italy
15. With regard to the allegations of illegal intelligence activities vis-à-vis judges and prosecutors in Italy (see the report of the 8th plenary meeting – Document CCJE(2007)8), the Bureau asked the Italian High Council for the Judiciary to keep the CCJE informed of any action, in particular judicial action, taken in this case.
4. Establishment of the Task Force
16. Pursuant to the decision taken by the CCJE at its 8th plenary meeting (November 2007), the Bureau decided to set up a task force for 2008 comprising Ms Aneta Arnodovska (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Mr Raffaelle Sabato (Italy) and Mr José Francisco Cobo Sàenz (Spain).
17. At this stage, the group was responsible, on behalf of the Bureau, for:
- examining the situation of judges in Serbia;
- taking note of the work done by other groups which are also addressing this issue;
- deciding whether it would be appropriate to meet some of these groups and/or to visit Serbia;
- preparing a draft text reflecting the CCJE’s opinion on this matter.
18. As there was no specific budget for holding a meeting of the task force, it was agreed that:
- the Secretariat would prepare a file comprising documents that would be useful to the task force and send it to the experts;
- Ms Arnodovska and Mr Sabato would take advantage of the Tartu meeting to begin the work;
- the experts would henceforth communicate by e-mail.
19. The Bureau thanked the three experts who had volunteered to become members of the task force.
20. It was agreed that the Bureau would once again include the question of setting up the task force on the agenda of its 4th meeting.
21. The Bureau said that, as of 2009, it would like the task force to have adequate funding for two annual meetings, one of which could be held in the country concerned if necessary. For the 2008 task force, the Bureau said it would appeal to member states, through the members of the CCJE, to make voluntary contributions.
22. The Bureau also asked the Secretariat to create a special heading - “CCJE Task Force” – on the CCJE website, to enable other CCJE members to follow the activities of the task force between meetings.
5. Fostering interaction with other committees
CCPE
23. As the CCPE conference to be held in Ireland would not take place until 2010, the CCJE and the CCPE could, in principle, hold a joint conference in 2009 on the subject of the relationship between judges and prosecutors. The Bureau hoped that it would be possible to establish fruitful and lasting co-operation with the CCPE and that a joint meeting between the two Bureaux could be held soon (perhaps at the next meeting of the CCPE Bureau on 11and 12 September 2008).
CJ-S-JUST
24. The Bureau of the CCJE took note of the decision of the CDCJ Bureau to set up a new group of experts to reconsider draft Recommendation No.R(94)12 revised on the independence, efficiency and role of judges and its draft explanatory memorandum. It regretted that it had not been possible to examine the document which the CCJE had prepared for the attention of the CDCJ (Comments of the CCJE on the draft Recommendation No.R(94)12 revised, document CCJE(2008)3).
25. As this text was of prime importance to judges and for the functioning of the judiciary in Europe, the Bureau hoped that a high-quality revised text would soon be adopted. It also told the CDCJ that the CCJE was prepared to take part, in one form or another, in the revision of Recommendation No.R(94)12.
Forum Justice – European Commission
26. The Bureau took note of the communication from the European Commission “on the creation of a Forum for discussing EU justice policies and practice”. The CCJE would very much have liked to have been mentioned in the text, as the CEPEJ had been, and to have been invited to the official ceremony for the launching of the Forum in Brussels on 30 May 2008. The Secretariat pointed out that the CEPEJ had been mentioned in the communication because it was responsible for evaluating the quality of judicial systems and because the EU could use its results to improve mutual confidence between member states. The joint CEPEJ/CCJE Secretariat would refer to the activities of the CCJE at the inaugural session and the CCJE could be invited to the working meetings of the Forum, if they concerned subjects which were of relevance to judges.
6. Any other business
Request from the ENCJ
27. The Bureau authorised the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ) to use and update the CCJE questionnaire (and the corresponding replies) on ethical conduct and the responsibility of judges, used to help draft CCJE Opinion No. 3. It hoped that the ENCJ would forward the updates it had made to the CCJE Secretariat so that they could be put on its website. The Bureau welcomed this fresh example of good co-operation between the two bodies.
Next meeting of the CCJE Bureau
28. It was agreed that the 4th meeting of the Bureau would be held in Tartu on Tuesday 17 June 2008 at 6 p.m.
Appendix
AGENDA
1. Opening of the meeting
2. Adoption of the agenda
3. Information provided by the President of the CCJE and the Secretariat
4. Preparation of the 15th meeting of the CCJE-GT (Tartu, Estonia)
5. Examination of the situation in Serbia, Poland and Romania
6. Establishment of the Task Force
7. Fostering interaction with other committees (CE Forum, CDCJ, etc).
8. Any other business