Strasbourg, 8 July 2011

CEPEJ-RL-BU(2011)2

EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE (CEPEJ)

BUREAU OF THE LISBON NETWORK

(Network of the judicial training institutions of Council of Europe member states)

Report on the informal Bureau meeting,

Strasbourg, 27 June 2011

Extract from the report of the 17^th plenary meeting of the CEPEJ,

Strasbourg, 28 June 2011

I.          Report on the informal Bureau meeting, Strasbourg, 27 June 2011

1.         The Bureau of the Lisbon Network held an informal meeting at the Palais de l'Europe, Strasbourg, in the afternoon of 27 June  2011, in the presence of:

- Ms Aneta ARNAUDOVSKA ("the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia")

- Ms Ivana GORANIC (Croatia)

- Mr Pascal ORTUNO (Spain)

- Mr Shota RUKHADZE (Georgia).

2.         It can be recalled that the activities of the Lisbon Network have been on hold since the end of 2008, as the network's lack of any own legal status meant that it could not be allocated a specific budget by the Council of Europe that would have enabled it to hold meetings. To allow the network to resume its activities, in 2009 the CEPEJ, aware of the importance of this work, envisaged the possibility of taking the network under its aegis, as permitted by its statute. The Lisbon Network would thus pursue its activities but would be integrated in the CEPEJ and refocus its work on issues relating to the efficiency and quality of justice.

3.         The CEPEJ wrote to the members of the Lisbon Network to propose this idea. A first plenary meeting of this new-style network was held on 17 February  2011. To consider the network's new status and the follow-up to be given to this first plenary meeting, it was also decided to convene a meeting of the network's former bureau the day before the 17th plenary meeting of the CEPEJ, thus enabling the Bureau members to be present.

4.         Firstly, the Bureau of the Lisbon Network welcomed the integration of the network in the CEPEJ, as this permitted the network's continued existence. It noted that the network was of particular importance for non-EU member states, which cannot be members of the European Judicial Training Network (EJTN) but merely have observer status with that body.

5.         The Bureau considered that co-operation between judicial institutions of all kinds was important and this pooling of experience between the network and the CEPEJ constituted an opportunity to enhance the quality and efficiency of justice in Europe.

6.         Referring to the concerns voiced by certain members of the network at its plenary meeting on 17 February  2011, the Bureau wondered about the network's status within the CEPEJ: was it a sub-committee of the CEPEJ, a network of national institutes or an advisory committee? It was indeed necessary to take account of the specific nature of the network, which comprised training institutes pursuing autonomous activities at national level. This independence should accordingly be respected in the network's relations with the CEPEJ.

7.         At the same time, the Bureau was aware that the network lacked the financial resources to function on an autonomous footing. A fair balance must therefore be struck between the network's independence and the CEPEJ's expectations.

8.         Regarding the working structure of the network, the Bureau proposed the following to the CEPEJ:

-       The CEPEJ could decide that the network would have a Bureau with responsibility for the actual links between the network and the CEPEJ; the Bureau could have four members, appointed from among and by the network's members for a two-year term;

-       Until the network's next plenary meeting, which should be held in 2013, the former Bureau, which had been appointed in 2008 but had never met since the activities had subsequently been put on hold, proposed to serve as the Bureau of the new network;

-       To ensure the Bureau was fully informed about the CEPEJ's activities and its expectations with regard to training, two Bureau meetings per year were proposed, each lasting half a day and taking place either just before or just after the CEPEJ's plenary meetings, so as to enable members to attend; for instance, the next meeting of the network's Bureau could take place on 8 December in the afternoon;

-       It would also be a good idea to designate a President of the network at the beginning of each plenary meeting, who could chair the proceedings together with the President of the CEPEJ;

-       The steering committee's composition could be determined in accordance with the requirements of the tasks entrusted to it, as suggested by the CEPEJ.

9.         Concerning tasks assigned to the network by the CEPEJ, the Bureau proposed that the network should be able to submit tangible proposals for activities to the CEPEJ or suggestions concerning the specific "training" and "Lisbon network" elements of the CEPEJ's programme of activities.

10.       The Bureau also voiced concerns about the specific task the CEPEJ had proposed entrusting to the network at the meeting on 17 February 2011, namely "experimentation of the handbook for conducting satisfaction surveys aimed at court users". It considered that it was not for the national training institutes to take responsibility for surveys which, in one form or another, would entail an analysis of how well the courts and their staff operated. This could be perceived as interfering with the functioning of the courts. In all member states this kind of survey was conducted under the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice or of a Judicial Council. Entrusting such a task to trainees, who were future members of the judiciary, could pose problems, particularly with regard to court staff. The Bureau nonetheless stated that, while this was the opinion of the majority of the network's members, it did not mean that certain specific institutes might not wish to participate in conducting such surveys.

11.       The Bureau hoped that the CEPEJ would understand these reservations, which should not be construed as a refusal to co-operate as a matter of principle. It added that the network was ready swiftly to implement other instruments developed by the CEPEJ (as its members already did to a large extent) with regard to quality, case management, length of proceedings and so on.

12.       It also hoped that the network would be able to continue its activity to promote exchanges of information and good practices between training institutes, in particular regarding the institutions' quality (organisation, management, standards and training curricula).

13.       The Bureau also considered it very important for the network to bear in mind part IV of document  CEPEJ(2009)12 ("Note on possible integration of the Lisbon Network within the CEPEJ's activity programme"), setting out possible missions and tasks for the network.

14.       The Bureau hoped that the network's integration within the CEPEJ would be finalised rapidly and under the conditions set out herein and said it was open to any tangible proposals for activities. Otherwise, if the CEPEJ invited it to do so, the Bureau could submit tangible proposals to the CEPEJ by early September.

II.         Extract of the report of the 17^th CEPEJ Plenary meeting, Strasbourg, 28 June 2011

§  took note of the informal meeting report by the Lisbon Network’s Bureau held in Strasbourg on 27 June 2011;

§  decided that a Bureau, composed of four members, be established for the Lisbon Network by the members of the Network in order to prepare and manage the Network’s activities between two plenary meetings of the Network; agreed that the Lisbon Network's Bureau would be able to meet with the CEPEJ's Bureau to organise cooperation;

§  agreed that the Lisbon Network should have the opportunity to provide the CEPEJ with proposals for activities;

§  invited the Lisbon Network to express concrete proposals allowing a proper use of the CEPEJ tools within the training of judges and prosecutors;

§  invited the CEPEJ national correspondents to cooperate with the Network’s members when replying to questions in the Scheme for the evaluation of judicial systems regarding the training of judges and prosecutors and instructed the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL to consult the Network when drafting parts of the Report on the Evaluation of judicial systems on such training matters;