tasks: analyse the judicial systems in member states identify the difficulties they meet define...
TRANSCRIPT
Tasks:analyse the judicial systems in member states identify the difficulties they meet define concrete ways to improve the functioning of these systems provide assistance to member States, at their request
established in 2002 composed of experts from 47 member States
of CoE plenary meetings - twice a year - June/July
and December Bureau Working groups Secretariat
Observers:Holy SeeCanadaJapanMexicoUnited States of AmericaIsraëlMorocco
Observers - international non-governmental organisations: The Council of the Bars and Law Societies of the European Communities (CCBE) The European Association of Judges Magistrats européens pour la Démocratie et les Libertés (MEDEL) European Judicial Training Network Association of European administrative Judges The European Union of Rechtspfleger (EUR) International Union of Judicial Officers European Network of the Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ) American Bar Association - Rule of Law Initiative (ABA - Rule of Law Initiative)
Working groups:
CEPEJ-GT-EVAL - „European judicial systems“
CEPEJ-GT-QUAL - Handbook for conducting satisfaction
surveys aimed at court users in CoE member States
- Measuring the quality of judical services
SATURN
Study andAnalysis of judicialTimeUseResearchNetwork
Visions:
Obtaining a global view Identify the real reason of the excessive procedure lengths Proposing methodology and toolsHelp member states
Strategic goals:1.Data collection2.Continuous improvement of data collected3.Analysis of data collected4.Adoption of standards relating to judicial timeframes5.Dissemination of the guidelines, the standards and the results of the analysis of the data collected in member states6.Active promotion of the use of judicial time management tools 7.Support to the implementation of judicial time management tools
The “Time Management Checklist“ - CEPEJ(2005)12Rev
The Study: “Time management of justice systems: a Northern Europe study” - CEPEJ Studies No. 2, 2006
The report “Length of court proceedings in the member states of the Council of Europe based on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights” - CEPEJ Studies No. 3, 2006, updated in 2012
The “Compendium of best practices on time management of judicial proceedings” - CEPEJ(2006)13
The “SATURN Guidelines for judicial time management” - CEPEJ(2008)8Rev
SATURN priorities - 15 guidelines Other 48 SATURN guidelines
1. Guidelines on planning and collection of data
2. Guidelines on statistics3. Guidelines on targets and crisis
management
Guideline 1The length of judicial proceedings should be planned, both at the general level (planning of average/mean duration of particular types of cases, or average/mean duration of process before certain types of courts), and at the level of concrete proceedings. Guideline 2The users are entitled to be consulted in the time management of the judicial process and in setting the dates or estimating the timing of all future procedural steps.
Guideline 14Where possible, the judge should attempt to reach agreement with all participants in the procedure regarding the procedural calendar. For this purpose, he should also be assisted by appropriate court personnel (clerks) and information technology.
Guideline 15The deviations from the agreed calendar should be minimal and restricted to justified cases. In principle, the extension of the set time limits should be possible only with the agreement of all parties, or if the interests of justice so require.
Guideline 4Particular attention should be given to the cases where integral duration is such that it may give rise to the finding of the violation of the human right to a trial within reasonable time.
Guideline 5The monitoring should make sure that the periods of inactivity (waiting time) in the judicial proceeding are not excessively long, and wherever such extended periods exists, particular effort have to be made in order to speed up the proceeding and compensate for the delay.
Guideline 6The court managers should collect information on the most important steps in the judicial process. They should keep records regarding the duration between these steps. In respect to the steps monitored, due regard should be given to the Time management Checklist, Indicator 4.
Guideline 7The information collected should be available, to inform the work of court administrators, judges and the central authorities responsible for the administration of justice. In appropriate form, the information should also be made available to the parties and the general public.
Guideline 8All information collected should be continually analysed and used for the purposed of monitoring and improvement of perfomance.
Guideline 9The reports on the results of analysis should be produced at regular intervals, at least once a year, with appropriate recommendations.
Guideline 10In addition to the standards and targets set at the higher level (national, regional), there should be specific targets at the level of individual courts. The court managers should have sufficient authorities and autonomy to actively set or participate in setting of these targets.
Guideline 11The targets should clearly define the objectives and be achievable. They should be published and subject to periodical re-evaluation.
Guideline 3If departures from standards and targets for judicial timeframes are being observed or foreseen, prompt actions should be taken in order to remedy the causes of such departures.
Guideline 12The targets may be used in the evaluation of the court performance. If they are not achieved, the concrete steps and actions have to be taken to remedy the situation.
Guideline 13In the situations where there is a significant departure from the targets set at the court level, there should be specific means to rapidly and adequately address the cause of the problem.
General data on courts and court proceedings:
the number and types of courts and their jurisdictionthe number and types of proceedings in the courtthe proceedings designated as priority (urgent) cases
General data on courts and court proceedings:
total number of proceedings pending at the beginning of the monitored periodnew proceedings initiated within the monitored periodresolved cases (proceedings finalized within the monitored period either through a decision on the merit, a withdrawal of the case, a friendly settlement etc.)total number of proceedings pending at the end of the monitored period
General data on courts and court proceedings:
total number of proceedings pending at the beginning of the monitored periodnew proceedings initiated within the monitored periodresolved cases (proceedings finalized within the monitored period either through a decision on the merit, a withdrawal of the case, a friendly settlement etc.)total number of proceedings pending at the end of the monitored period
Analytical information and indicators:1.Clearance Rate (CR):
2.Case Turnover ratio:
1.Dispositon Time (DT):
CEPEJ set up a Network of Pilot-courts from European States to:
support its activities through a better understanding of the day to day functioning of courts and to highlight best practices which could be presented to policy makers in European States in order to improve the efficiency of judicial systems.
first instance or higher instance courts in civil, administrative or criminal matters
having successful experience as regards the monitoring and management of judicial timeframes
must be available to cooperate concretely and regularly with the CEPEJ
enthusiasm size, caseload and geographpical location equipment and staffing language involvement of policymakers and judicial administration
Step 1 - Evaluation of the existing implementation of the SATURN Guidelines in the courts’ practices
Step 2 - Implementation of the SATURN priorities
Step 3 - Reporting
SATURN priorities - 15 guidelines Other 48 SATURN guidelines Sources: „Reports on the CEPEJ guidelines for judicial
time management”; the “Compendium of ‘best practices’ for judicial time management”, the “Time management of justice systems: A Northern Europe Study”; the “Timeliness report 2010-2011“ of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary and the “CEPEJ European Judicial Systems Report 2010”
