Strasbourg 11 August 2009

CCJE-BU(2009)6

CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN JUDGES

(CCJE)

6^th meeting of the Bureau

Bordeaux, 3 July 2009

MEETING REPORT

1.         The Bureau of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) held its 6^th meeting at the Ecole Nationale de la Magistrature Française in Bordeaux (France) on 3 July 2009, with Ms Julia LAFFRANQUE (Estonia) in the chair.

2.         The following Bureau members were present:

• Mr Orlando AFONSO (Portugal);
• Mr Gerhard REISSNER (Austria);
• Mr Raffaele SABATO (Italy).

3.         The agenda is appended.

1.         Preparation of the 2009 Opinion and harmonisation of the work with the CCPE

4.         The Bureau welcomed the high quality of the work conducted at the joint meeting of the CCJE and CCPE working groups, which had led to the formulation of a draft Opinion on relations between judges and prosecutors in the form of a brief Declaration known as the “Bordeaux Declaration”, accompanied by an explanatory memorandum.  According to the Bureau members, the statements and discussions at the European Conference held on the two days preceding the meeting had been instrumental in devising an effective and concrete text demonstrating the ability of European judges and prosecutors to work together, as recommended by the Committee of Ministers.  The Bureau took the opportunity of voicing its since gratitude to the Ecole Nationale de la Magistrature (ENM) for hosting the joint CCJE/CCPE meeting.

5.         In order to ensure that useful work could continue until the adoption of the Opinion, and in the light of the working methods which it had just adopted (see paragraph 20 below), the CCJE Bureau defined a detailed work schedule covering the period up to the CCJE plenary meeting, which would be held concurrently with the CCPE plenary from 18 to 20 November 2009:

• Friday 10 July: sending by the Secretariat of the Bordeaux Declaration as corrected together with the explanatory memorandum (former version 9 of the draft Opinion) for amendment of the latter, to:
• • Orlando Afonso (responsible for working on the introduction – Part I – and on the relations and functions of judges and prosecutors in criminal proceedings – Part III);
  • Paul Mafféi (responsible for working on the status of judges and prosecutors – Part II);
  • Gerhard Reissner (responsible for working on judge/prosecutor relations in the non-criminal field – Part IV – and on the media – Part V);
  • Raffaele Sabato (responsible for drafting a short section on international co-operation – Future Part VI)

• Monday 3 August: sending by the above-mentioned persons of the corresponding sections of the explanatory memorandum as amended to the Secretariat.

• Friday 14 August: sending by the Secretariat of the amended and translated explanatory memorandum to the Chair.

• Thursday 3 September: sending by the Chair of the finalised explanatory memorandum to the Secretariat.

• September: deadline for translation and finalisation of the text.

• 5 October: sending to all CCJE members of the text of the Bordeaux Declaration and the explanatory memorandum, accompanied by a letter from the Chair and the document setting out the working methods adopted by the Bureau of the CCJE (Document CCJE(2009)3).

• 30 October: deadline for CCJE members to send the Secretariat their comments on the Declaration and the explanatory memorandum.

• Beginning of November: preparation by the Secretariat of a document in the form of a two-column table (first column with the text of the finalised explanatory memorandum as sent on 5 October, second column with amendments proposed by CCJE members).

6.         The Bureau instructed the Secretariat to co-ordinate this work with that of the CCPE Working Group in order as quickly as possible to secure a standard text likely to satisfy both the judges and the prosecutors.  It also expressed the wish that the members of both Consultative Councils from “common law” States should be regularly consulted so that the final text took full account of their specificities.

7.         It also set out guidelines for those who would be working on the draft Opinion:

• if possible, avoid tampering with the content of the Declaration;
• check the conformity of the explanatory memorandum with the Declaration;
• if necessary, alter the structure of the explanatory memorandum to bring it into line with that of the Declaration;
• avoid considering the explanatory memorandum as “set in stone” and try to reformulate the ideas set out in order to shorten the text;
• prioritise historical reminders over presenting current national situations already mentioned in other documents;
• use footnotes to mention references to other texts (previous Opinions, Recommendations, etc) and examples of case-law.

2.         Preparation of the 10^th meeting of the CCJE and other CCJE activities for 2009

CCJE budget for 2009

8.         The Secretariat informed the Bureau of the CCJE that because of budgetary restrictions within the Division for the Judiciary, some CCJE activities provided for in the 2009 budget would not be implemented.  In this connection, the CCJE’s 10^th plenary meeting, which should have been held in Ljubljana, Slovenia, would take place in Strasbourg, and the attendance of a CCJE member at the meetings of the CJ-S-JUD and the EU Justice Forum could not be paid for by the Council of Europe.  The Secretariat also announced that owing to a lack of budgetary resources, some of the activities related to the development of the CCJE Task Force could not be scheduled for the current year[1].

9.         All the Bureau members voiced their deep disappointment that the CCJE was being deprived in this way of such important activities, adding that they failed to understand exactly why these activities had been cancelled.  They also wondered about the expediency of the simultaneous interpretation into Russian which had been provided at the Conference, at a time of budgetary savings and in the case of a language which was not a working language, and asked that these considerations be expressly mentioned in the present report.

Organisation of the 10^th plenary meeting

10.        Subject to the CCPE’s agreement on this matter, the Bureau would like the plenary meeting to be organised as set out below:

• Tuesday 18 November

9.30 – 10.30 am: joint CCJE/CCPE official opening ceremony

11 am – 6 pm: CCJE meeting dealing with the preparation of the joint Opinion

• Wednesday 19 November

9.30 am – 6 pm: joint CCJE/CCPE meeting dealing with the preparation of the joint Opinion

• Thursday 20 November

9.30 – 11 am: CCPE meeting dealing with other agenda items

11.30 am – 2 pm: official adoption of the Opinion and Press Conference.

11.        It also suggested organising a special event to celebrate the CCJE’s 10th meeting, and invited all the CCJE members and the Secretariat to make proposals to this end.

12.        In order to obviate any difficulties in adopting the Opinion such as those encountered by the CCJE in adopting its Opinion No. 11, the CCJE Chair suggested immediately implementing the provisions set out in the CCJE’s working methods as drafted on his initiative, and proposed the following measures with immediate effect: in view of the fact that the CCJE members would have received the text of the Opinion by 5 October and would have had the possibility of submitting their proposed amendments in writing, the plenary discussion should initially be confined to the text of the Bordeaux Declaration.  Once this Declaration had been adopted, the CCJE could more briefly examine the comments previously submitted in writing on the Explanatory Memorandum, leaving it to the CCJE, if necessary, to adopt the latter text subsequently in writing should no agreement be reached at the meeting.

13.        If any major disagreements emerged on the text before the plenary meeting in the light of the comments submitted by CCJE and CCPE members, the Bureaus of the CCJE and CCPE might meet on the afternoon of 17 November in order to prepare a compromise text in co-operation with the Secretariat.

14.        The Bureau of the CCJE invited all the CCJE members to comply with the aforementioned suggestions for the sole purpose of securing the adoption of a consensual, high-quality Opinion, in accordance with Committee of Ministers recommendations.

CCJE terms of reference for 2010 and 2011.

15.        At its 10^th plenary meeting, the CCJE would also have to prepare its draft terms of reference for 2010-2011, to be submitted to the Committee of Ministers for adoption, setting out the themes of the Opinions for these two years.  In this connection, the Bureau considered Document CCJE-BU(2009)5 summarising in tabular form the wishes of CCJE members concerning future Opinions (see Appendix II to this document).

16.        The Bureau of the CCJE proposed choosing the theme “the role of judges and governments in enforcing judicial decisions” for 2010,adopting two short Opinions on it, one relating to criminal law and the other civil law.  In this connection, the Bureau took note of the proposal from the CCJE member in respect of "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", Ms Aneta ARNODOVSKA, to invite her Working Group to meet in her country in the near future, and instructed the Secretariat to contact her to ascertain whether this meeting might be held in 2010.

17.        For 2011, the Bureau considered that the CCJE might address the following theme: “Judges and the dematerialisation of the judicial process”.  The Bureau would prepare a memorandum on these two themes for the CCJE members.

18.        It also proposed considering “Codification of existing CCJE Opinions with an eye to formulating guidelines on the independence, impartiality and efficiency of the judicial system” in conjunction with “Updating existing Opinions”.  Given the more technical nature of this work, it might be tackled in 2011, while also preparing an Opinion on a more substantive matter.  In connection with the theme “The role of the legislature and government vis-à-vis the courts”, which had attracted the most votes, the Bureau suggested examining it at a later stage, after the publication of the new version of Recommendation No. R (94) 12 on the independence, efficiency and role of judges, which was currently being revised by the Group of Specialists on the Judiciary (CJ-S-JUD) and which partly addressed the issue of separation of powers.

19.        In the light of these considerations, the Bureau of the CCJE instructed the Secretariat to prepare preliminary draft terms of reference for the CCJE for 2010-2011, inviting it to include a specific reference to the increasing interest on the part of the CCJE in working more closely with the national judicial authorities on concrete issues.

3.         Working methods of the CCJE

20.        The Bureau of the CCJE adopted the document entitled “Working Methods of the CCJE” (CCJE-BU (2008) 5) as prepared by the Chair, and decided to submit it to the CCJE for adoption at the 10^th plenary meeting.

4.         Development of synergies with other committees

Venice Commission

21.        The Bureau reiterated its desire for the CCJE to co-operate with the Venice Commission on the subject of the re-election of judges in Serbia.

CDCJ

22.        The Bureau instructed the Secretariat to find a means of financing a CCJE member’s attendance at the September meeting of the Group of Specialists on the Judiciary (CJ-S-JUD) (see also paragraph 8 of this document).

MEDEL

23.        The Bureau took note of the letter sent by the representative of the Portuguese Judges’ Trade Union Association (ASJP) with the MEDEL inviting the CCJE to support a seminar to be held in Lisbon on 13 November 2009 on the theme “Constitutional guarantees on the independence of judges and the autonomy of the Public Prosecutor's Office”.  The Chair of the CCJE informed the Bureau that she intended to reply by asking for further information on what kind of support was being requested.

Brazilian Supreme Court of Justice

24.        Mr Orlando AFONSO passed on to the Bureau the apologies for absence of the President of the Brazilian Supreme Court of Justice, Mr Cesar ASFOR ROCHA, who was to have attended this meeting but had had to cancel his trip to Europe because of other urgent commitments.  This encounter followed on from the invitation of the Vice-Chair of the CCJE to a meeting in Madrid the previous May, organised by the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (RECJ) and the Ibero-American Judicial Summit, which had together set up a joint Commission of European and Latin American Judiciaries, to which the CCJE might be appointed observer.  The CCJE would invite the President to attend its 10^th plenary meeting the following November, if he so wished.  The Bureau also instructed its Vice-Chair to ascertain the dates and place of the subsequent meeting of the aforementioned Commission.

25.        The Bureau considered that co-operation between the Ibero-American judges and the CCJE would lead to a useful exchange of experience, enriching the work of the judicial communities on both sides of the Atlantic.

5.         Other business

26.        The CCJE was informed that it had just been declared the 2008 prize-winner by the Justice in the World Foundation, and would be awarded the Prize at a ceremony to be held in Madrid on 29 September 2009.  The Chair of the CCJE and the Council of Europe would be invited to attend this event.  The Bureau welcomed this award, in the hope that it would help raise the CCJE’s profile.

Annexe I

AGENDA / ORDRE DU JOUR

1.    Opening of the meeting/Ouverture de la réunion

2.    Adoption of the agenda/Adoption de l’ordre du jour

3.    Information by the President of the CCJE and the Secretariat/Informations par le Président du CCJE et le Secrétariat

4.     Meeting with Mr César ASFOR ROCHA (Brazil), President of the High Court of Justice/Rencontre avec M. César ASFOR ROCHA (Brésil), Président de la Cour Supérieure de Justice

5.    Preparation of the 10th meeting of the CCJE (Strasbourg, 18-20 November 2009)/Préparation de la 10ème réunion du CCJE (Strasbourg, 18-20 novembre 2009)

6.    Preparation of the 17th meeting of the CCJE-GT, the Conference and harmonisation of the work with the CCPE/Préparation de la 17ème réunion du CCJE-GT, de la Conférence et harmonisation des travaux avec le CCPE

7.    Working methods of the CCJE/Méthodes de travail du CCJE

8.    Examination of the situation in Serbia, Italy, Romania, Poland and Bulgaria/Examen de la situation en Serbie, Italie, Roumanie, Pologne et Bulgarie

9.    Future work and role of the Task Force/Travaux et rôle futurs de la Task Force

10.  Visibility of the work of the CCJE/Visibilité des travaux du CCJE

11.  Future work of the CCJE/Travaux futurs du CCJE

12.  Development of synergies with other committees (CJ-S-JUD, Venice Commission, EC Justice Forum, etc)/Développement des synergies avec d’autres comités (CJ-S-JUD, Commission de Venise, Forum de la justice de la CE, etc).

 

13.  Any other business/Divers.

Annexe II

Thèmes proposés / Proposed themes	Par les Etats/observateurs suivants/ By the following States/observers:
Execution des jugements *** Execution of judgments	-       Bosnie & Herzegovine / Bosnia & Herzegovina -       Pays-Bas / Netherlands -       L’ex République yougoslave de Macédoine/ the former Yugoslav Repuboic of Macedonia
Le rôle du législateur et du gouvernement concernant les tribunaux (séparation des pouvoirs) *** The role of the legislator and the government regarding the court (separation of powers)	-       Belgique / Belgium -       Croatie / Croatia -       Chypre / Cyprus -       Danemark / Denmark -       Finlande / Finland -       Géorgie / Georgia -       Allemagne / Germany -       Lettonie / Latvia -       Lithuanie / Lithuania -       Pays-Bas / Netherlands -       Slovenie / Slovenia -       Suède / Sweden -       Royaume-Uni / United Kingdom
Codification des principaux Avis existants du CCJE, en vue d’élaborer des lignes directrices sur l’indépendance, l’impartialité et l’efficacité du système judiciaire *** Codification of the main existing CCJE Opinions with a view of drafting guidelines on independence, impartiality and efficiency of the judicial system	-       Belgium (après révision Rec (94)12) / Belgium (after revision of Rec (94)12 -       Chypre / Cyprus -       France -       Hongrie / Hungary -       Royaume-Uni (plus tard)/ United Kingdom (later) -       MEDEL
Mise à jour des Avis existant du CCJE *** Updating existing Opinions of the CCJE (ex: Avis / Opinion N°3)	-       Norvège / Norway
Gestion des affaires et rôle des Présidents de tribunaux / gestion des tribunaux *** Case management and the role of Presidents of courts / court leadership	-       Allemagne / Germany -       Norvège / Norway -       L’ex République yougoslave de Macédoine/ the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Spécialisation des tribunaux et des juges *** Specialisation of court and judges	-       Géorgie / Georgia -       Allemagne / Germany -       Malte / Malta -       L’ex République yougoslave de Macédoine/ the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Relations entre juges et avocats dans les procédures judiciaires *** Juges relations with lawyers in court proceedings	-       Irlande / Ireland -       Malte / Malta -       Norvège / Norway
Question disciplinaires *** Disciplinary issues	-       Malte / Malta
Conditions de travail dans les tribunaux (y compris questions de sécurité) *** Working conditions in courts (including security issues)	-       Croatie / Croatia