Strasbourg, 2 June 2011                                                                      CCJE-GT(2011)6

WORKING GROUP OF THE
CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN JUDGES

(CCJE-GT)

Report of the 20nd meeting

Strasbourg

28-30 March 2011

Secretariat document

prepared by the Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs

 

I.     Introduction

1.        The Working Group of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE-GT) held its 20^st meeting in Strasbourg on 28th to 30^th of March 2011. Mr. Gerhard REISSNER (Austria) chaired the meeting.

2.        The agenda and the list of participants are appended to this report (Appendix I and II respectively).

II.    Preparation of Opinion No.14 on “non-materialisation of the judicial process“

3.             The CCJE-GT congratulates itself on the large number of replies received to the questionnaire on the « non-materialisation of the judicial process » (36 member States replied – see these replies on the CCJE’s website).

4.             It welcomes Mrs Dory Reiling, Judge in Amsterdam's Court (District Court) and an independent expert in new technologies and judicial reforms, as an expert consultant in charge to help the Working Group draft the Opinion. Ms. Reiling has prepared a summary of replies to the questionnaire for submission to the Working Group. .

5.             In the light of this presentation, the CCJE-GT adopts a draft structure of the Opinion (CCJE-GT (2011) 5REV1, contained in Annex III to this document and instructs Ms Reiling to prepare a draft Opinion on the basis of the proposed structure.

6.             In agreement with the expert, the Working Group decides to change the title of the Opinion, initially "Dematerialisation of the judicial process", to "Justice and Information Technology." This title reflects more the problematics to be treated, without changing the thematic by the Committee of Ministers in the mandate CCJE.

III.   Examination of paragraph 22 of the «Magna Carta of Judges (Fundamental Principles)» in view of a clarification

7.             The Bureau took a decision on this point therefore it was not submitted to the CCJE-GT (see the report of the 9th Bureau meeting, Strasbourg, March 28, 2011, document CCJE-BU (2011) 1).

IV.   State of the situation concerning the other activities of the CCJE

8.             Since its last plenary meeting, the CCJE instructed its Bureau to prepare the decisions of CCJE as regards the activities of practical assistance of the CCJE.

9.             On all these points, see the report of the 9th meeting of the Bureau mentioned above.

V.    Next meeting

10.          The next meeting of the CCJE-GT will be held on 15 and 16 June 2011 in Strasbourg.

ANNEX I

AGENDA

1.        Opening of the meeting

2.        Adoption of the agenda

3.        Information by the President of the CCJE, the President of the CCJE-GT and the Secretariat

4.        Preparation of the draft Opinion No. 14 on “non-materialisation of the judicial process“

5.        Examination of paragraph 22 of the “Magna Carta of judges (Fundamental principles)” with a view of clarification        

6.        Other items

           

Annex II

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

CROATIA/CROATIE :

Mr Duro SESSA, Judge, Supreme Court, Trg Nikole Šubica Zrinskoga, 310 000 Zagreb

France :

M. Alain LACABARATS, Président de Chambre, Cour de Cassation, 5 quai de l'Horloge, 75055, Paris

LITHUANIA/LITUANIE :

Mr Virgilijus VALANČIUS, President of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, President of the European Association of Judges, žygimantu, 2 LT, 01101 Vilnius

Luxembourg : (Deputy member/suppléant)

M. Jean-Claude WIWINIUS, Président de Chambre, Cour Supérieure de Justice, cité Judiciaire, 2080, Luxembourg

NETHERLANDS/PAYS BAS

Mr Bart Van LIEROP, Justice, Court of Appeal for Trade and Industry, Postbus 2002, 2500 EH The Hague

NORWAY/NORVEGE: excused/excusé

Mr Nils A. ENGSTAD, Judge, Halogaland Court of Appeal, 0030 Tromsø

POLAND/POLOGNE :

Ms Irena PIOTROWSKA, Judge, Court of Appeal, Warsaw, Council of the Judiciary, ul. Rakowiecka 30, 02-528 Warsaw

SLOVENIA/SLOVENIE :

Ms. Nina BETETTO, Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia, Tavčarjeva 9, 1000 Ljubljana

SPAIN/ESPAGNE:

M. José Francisco COBO SÀENZ, Magistrato, Presidente de la Secc. 2a, Provincial de Navarra, c/ Ran Roque s/n, 31071 Pamplona

“THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA”/“L’EX-REPUBLIQUE YOUGOSLAVE DE MACEDOINE”:

Mrs Aneta ARNAUDOVSKA, Juge, Director of the Academy for training of judges and prosecutors, bul. Jane Sandanski 12, Skopje

SCIENTIFIC EXPERT / EXPERT CONSULTANT

Mr. Dory Reiling, Vice-President sector bestuursrecht, Rechtbank Amsterdam, S 1.34

***

COUNCIL OF EUROPE’S SECRETARIAT /

SECRETARIAT DU CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE

Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs/

Direction générale des droits de l’Homme et des affaires juridiques

E-mail : [email protected]

Fax : + 33 (0) 88 41 37 43

Muriel DECOT, Secretary of the CCJE / Secrétaire du CCJE, Tel: + 33 3 90 21 44 55, e-mail: [email protected]

Jean-Pierre GEILLER, Documentation, Tel : + 33 3 88 41 22 27, e-mail : [email protected]

Annette SATTEL, Communication, Tel: + 33 3 88 41 39 04, e-mail: [email protected]

Emily WALKER, Assistant/Assistant, Tel : + 33 3 90 21 48 39, e-mail : [email protected]

ANNEX III

Draft structure of Opinion n°14

                  Questionnaire prepared by the CCJE to the attention of member states on the non-materialization of the judicial process and replies (33)

                  Short description on the existing situation in Europe regarding information technologies (hereafter “IT”)

                  Works of the Council of Europe: CEPEJ Evaluation report (Chapter 5.3 on Information and Communication Technologies in the courts, e-justice, e-tribunals), other texts

                  Legal instruments of the European Union and other international legal instruments

                  The choice of the new title for the Opinion, rather than the title proposed in the terms of reference, needs to be justified

                  Definition of “e-justice”, “e-files”, new technical means

                  List of available or already used IT

           

                  Define the objectives of the Opinion

                  Not the technical aspects but analyse the possibilities offered by IT and their impact on the access to justice, the rule of law, the independence of the judge and the judiciary and rights of the parties

                  IT are means to do justice. They should improve the possibilities of judges and of the parties

                  IT must not prevent the judges from applying the law independently. They must not reduce procedural rights (Art. 6, etc.) of the parties

                  The implementation of IT can be dangerous for justice and the work of judges:

·                     A new perception of justice’s symbolism

·                     A risk of having a dehumanised justice and tribunals being closed          down

·                     Change in the duties of the judges, standardised justice (advantages and disadvantages for users)

                  Promoting transparency, improving access to justice

                  Improvement of access to general information on justice (procedures, timeframes, case-law, legislation, etc.)

·                     Change in the dissemination of information: growing number of sources (databases)

·                     Complexity of the use of sources of information (search engines)

·                     Responsibility of the judicial system regarding dissemination of information

·                     Should case-law databases be improved?

                  Improvement of access to information on the concrete individual proceedings. Communication between parties and the courts,

                  Principle of equality of all regarding access to justice

·                     Alternatives for persons that do not use IT and vulnerable persons

·                     Help desks etc. within courts should not be closed

                  IT can lead to settlement agreements (swiftness, judicial security because the process is standardised). The court user should always have the possibility to file a claim to the judge if he is not satisfied

                  Adequate balance between efficiency of procedures thanks to IT and the independence of judges

                  Judges’ independence vs. technical dependence

·                     There is a need for IT trained court staff and judiciary

·                     Judges should be involved in the implementation of computerised                            systems

·                     Different IT must be adapted to the complexity of cases

·                     IT must be adapted to justice, and not the opposite

                  Flexibility for judges is needed when using templates and standardised models or certain IT

                  Role of the Councils of Justice and other bodies (Supreme Courts, Ministry of Justice, etc.)

                  The budget of justice should be adapted to IT costs

                  Right to a fair trial is essential and can not be infringed for security or low-cost reasons. 

                  Exchange of best practices regarding IT within legal proceedings

                  Role of the judge in determining what procedures can be non-materialised

                  Procedures that should not be non-materialised in order to preserve a direct contact between the judge and parties (right of an oral hearing in certain criminal matters)

                  Changes in the procedure in the interest of increasing the possibility to use of IT should be done with great care and should not reduce procedural rights (or restrict the possibilities of judges to come to a correct decision)

 

                  Use of templates (see Opinion n°11)

                  Authenticity of the documents

                  There is no (not always ? only in some cases ?) strong direct influence to reduce the time of a case by use of IT; but, by use of IT, the case-management could be improved, which helps to reduce the time a case is pending

                  Sharing tools (templates, best practice, methodologies). Possibility for several persons to work on the same file.

                  New technologies and international cooperation

                  Different types of data: data of the register, content of the file, preparatory work of the judge

                  Access to data and protection of data are linked (internal and external access). Advantages and dangers of networks or links with other actors of the judicial field (prosecutors, lawyers, police, etc.)

                  Use of data:

·                     Which data?

·                     How is the data used (case management, evaluation of courts and                            judges, statistics)?

·                     Who has access to the data (court clerks, judges, council of justice,                   ministries of justice, inspections)?

                  Protection of the data, from third party access (cybercrime, etc.)

                  Protect data used by judges to decide on a case, from access by parties and third parties

                  Impact of the use of case-law databases on judicial decisions. Should the case-law databases be anonymous for judges as well?