Joint Programme Enhancing judicial reform in the Eastern Partnership countries

1

Joint ProgrammeEnhancing judicial reform in
the Eastern Partnership countries
Judicial component
2
 General purpose
Support judicial reform in Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine

• Independence
• Professionalism
• Efficiency

Judicial component
3
Specific objectives

• Identification of challenges vs European
  standards on judiciary
• Finding solution
• Formulation, dissemination and follow-up of
  recommendations

Judicial component
4
Project progress

• Working groups on Independent, Professional and
  Efficient Judicial System completed their work
• Four reports prepared on Judicial self-governing
  bodies and career of judges, The profession of
  lawyer, Training of Judges and Efficient
  Judicial Systems
• The phase of in-country discussions and
  dissemination of the findings and recommendations
  on the issues of institutional independence of
  the judiciary and independence of the individual
  judge the role of the Bar, system of educating
  and training of judges, etc. vis-à-vis relevant
  European standards is complete these reports are
  updated and available ot the project web-site
• The dissemination of the results of the Working
  Group on Efficient Judicial Systems will be
  completed in 2013.

Judicial component
5
Progress vis-à-vis specific objectives

• Target Legal and practical obstacles to the
  implementation of the European standards as
  regards judicial reform to be identified, through
  intensive information and best practice sharing
• Fully achieved fully identified legal and
  practical obstacles to an independent and
  professional judiciary shortcomings in the field
  of judicial efficiency were also identified.
  Regional trends and problems also identified.

Judicial component
6
Progress vis-à-vis specific objectives(continued)

• Target Projects recommendations and best
  practices are disseminated among key national
  authorities and stakeholders at the national
  level with a view to adjusting judicial reform
  policies in the identified areas of concern.
• Almost fully achieved dissemination of the
  recommendations and discussions on a bilateral
  level of were completed for the two working
  groups the reports were further disseminated
  among the key stakeholders and beneficiaries in
  the summer of 2012 what remains to be completed
  is raising the awareness of the national
  authorities about the results of the WG 3.

7
Project outputs

• Four reports on Judicial Self-Governing Bodies
  and Judges Career, The Profession of Lawyer,
  Training of Judges include, Efficient Judicial
  Systems
• Comprehensive analysis of the legislation of
  participating countries
• Recommendations at a country and regional level
• Examples of best practices from the participating
  countries
• Up-to-date country sheets and relevant
  legislation of the EaP countries.

Judicial component
8
Efficient Judicial Systems report

• Addresses the efficiency and productivity of the
  courts and the judiciary
• Evaluates the situation in the five participating
  countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Republic
  of Moldova and Ukraine against European standards
  and good practices as regards the financing of
  the court system (including the management of
  courts funding) and court backlogs (case flow
  and judicial time management), using the
  evaluation methodology of the CEPEJ.

9
Efficient Judicial Systems report

• First draft report to was prepared during summer
  and discussed at the Working Group meeting in
  Strasbourg 11 and 12 October. Members of the WG
  were represented by the national judicial bodies,
  ministries of justice and CEPEJ national
  correspondents. The report was finalised in March
  2013.

Judicial component
10
Efficient Judicial Systems reportMethodology

• Comparing Countries
• Comparing Courts
• Policy making capacities

11
Methodology EPC-benchmarks for budgets

• Budget for courts as GDP/capita
• Budget for public prosecution as GDP/capita
• Budget for legal aid as GDP/capita

12
Table 4 Annual public budget allocated to
courts, prosecution services and legal aid per
inhabitant as part (in ) of the GDP per capita
in 2010
13
Table 8 Dimensions of court management
14
Comparative analysis of input, workload and
output (28 indicators)
Input budget, salary, judges,
staff Workload number of civil, administrative
and criminal cases per 100.000 inhabitants Output
Clearance rate and Disposition time of all
types of cases
15
Table 10 Efficiency of the EPC in average
European perspective
16
MethodologyCEPEJ recommended indicators
Type of case Cases pending on 1.1.2008 New cases initiated in 2008 Resolved cases in 2008 Cases pending on 31.12.2008
1 Civil cases
1a Litigious divorces
1b Dismissals
17
CEPEJ recommended indicators
18
CEPEJ applied indicators

• Clearance Rate
• Caseload
• Backlog Change
• Average Disposition Time
• Efficiency (Budget/resolved cases)
• Productivity (resolved cases/judge)
• Cost efficiency where appropriate
• Standard departure

19
CEPEJ Quality checks

• Regression - Cost efficiency where appropriate
• Average
• Median
• Deviation from average
• Standard deviation

20
Tailored Benchmarking
I.E. Clearance Rate Even if the overall standard
deviation is around 10 of an average clearance
rate of 96 (median 98), a clearance rate at or
below 95 is considered an alerting warning, at
or below 85 an alarm. Clearance rates up from
103 are considered a best practice.
21
FIGURE 1.21. Simple linear regressions per budget
and case type in the first-instance courts (Kiev
and Odessa)
22
Georgia
23
Next steps

• Completing the work of the WG 3 Efficient
  Judicial Systems in June 2013
• Ensuring follow-up on the results and
  recommendations of the project through
  discussions with the national and judicial
  authorities
• Assessing project results.

Judicial component
24

On behalf of the Justice and Legal Co-operation
Department Thank you for your attention Further
information on the project DGHL_capacitybuilding
_at_coe.int http//www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/cap
acitybuilding/
Judicial component