CEPEJCEPEJ

Activities on Court PerformanceActivities on Court Performance

Activities of CEPEJ in the field of…Activities of CEPEJ in the field of…

Evaluation of Judicial Systems Evaluation of Judicial Systems Judicial time managementJudicial time management Quality of justice Quality of justice Enforcement Enforcement Mediation Mediation Targeted co-operationTargeted co-operation

CEPEJ – recommends especiallyCEPEJ – recommends especially

Evaluation of Judicial Systems – ReportEvaluation of Judicial Systems – Report ““Time Management Checklist“Time Management Checklist“ SATURN – European Uniform Guidelines SATURN – European Uniform Guidelines

for Monitoring of Judicial Timeframes for Monitoring of Judicial Timeframes (EUGMONT)(EUGMONT)

GOJUST – Guidelines on Judicial GOJUST – Guidelines on Judicial StatisticsStatistics

CEPEJ – recommended indicatorsCEPEJ – recommended indicators

Type of caseCases pending on

1.1.2008New cases initiated

in 2008Resolved cases

in 2008Cases pending on31.12.2008

1 Civil cases

1a Litigious divorces

1b Dismissals

CEPEJ – recommended indicatorsCEPEJ – recommended indicators

resolved casesClearanceRate (%) x100

incoming cases

resolved casesClearanceRate (%) x100

incomingcases

Number of ResolvedCasesCaseTurnover Ratio=

Number of UnresolvedCasesat theEnd

erRatioCaseTurnovnTimeDispositio

365

Efficiency rate, Total backlog, Backlog resolution, Case per judge, Standard departure …

CEPEJ indicators – applied to TK ICEPEJ indicators – applied to TK I

resolved casesClearanceRate (%) x100

incoming cases

Totals CC Ç per judge

183,88 513,88 2,25 700,00 390,63 309,38 76% 60% 68% 289,08

Remaining Cases

Cases Filed This

Year

Cases Returned

by the Court of

Cassation

Total Files in Docket

Total Cases

Decided

Remaining Cases From the Previous

Year

Clearance Rate

CaseloadBacklog Change

Average Disposition

Time in days

Criminal Courts

240 265 7 512 329 183 121% 67% -24% 203,02

862 589 18 1.469 519 950 86% 157% 10% 668,11

884 576 7 1.467 637 830 109% 142% -6% 475,59

917 590 5 1.512 643 869 108% 146% -5% 493,29

1.087 2.695 0 3.782 2.043 1.739 76% 65% 60% 310,69

384 1.416 18 1.818 1.082 736 75% 51% 92% 248,28

Totals CC Ç 1.471 4.111 18 5.600 3.125 2.475 76% 60% 68% 289,08

"Ç" Courthouse Statistics

CEPEJ indicators – applied to TK IICEPEJ indicators – applied to TK II

resolved casesClearanceRate (%) x100

incoming cases

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Workload/Efficiency (cases per head)

Workload and efficiency of visited courts

Court 1

Court 2

Court 3

Court 4

Court 5

Court 6

Court 7

Average of courts

Austria

Bosnia i Herzegovina

And what about the Quality?And what about the Quality?

Comprehensive court quality modelsComprehensive court quality models

The Netherlands: measurement system court The Netherlands: measurement system court quality and RechtspraaQquality and RechtspraaQ

Finland: Quality Benchmarks Rovaniemi CourtsFinland: Quality Benchmarks Rovaniemi Courts

NL Quality indicators for evaluating courts (and NL Quality indicators for evaluating courts (and judges): measurement system court qualityjudges): measurement system court quality

Independence and impartialityIndependence and impartiality

Timeliness of proceedingsTimeliness of proceedings

Expertise of the judgesExpertise of the judges

Treatment of the parties at Treatment of the parties at court sessionscourt sessions

Judicial qualityJudicial quality

Tested in three district courts Tested in three district courts (1999 – 2001)(1999 – 2001)

NL RechtspraaQ (2002)NL RechtspraaQ (2002) Normative framework;Normative framework;

Quality regulations Quality regulations Measurement system for Measurement system for

court qualitycourt quality Measuring instruments:Measuring instruments:

Court-wide positioning Court-wide positioning studystudy

Client satisfaction surveyClient satisfaction survey VisitationVisitation AuditAudit

Other elements:Other elements: Complaints procedureComplaints procedure Peer reviewPeer review

Finland: Quality Benchmarks (2003)Finland: Quality Benchmarks (2003)

The processThe process The judicial decisionThe judicial decision The treatment of the The treatment of the

parties and the publicparties and the public Promptness of the Promptness of the

proceedingsproceedings Competence and Competence and

professional skills of the professional skills of the judgejudge

Organisation and Organisation and management of management of adjudicationadjudication

Finland: Methods of evaluationFinland: Methods of evaluation Self-evaluationSelf-evaluation SurveysSurveys Evaluation by a group of expert evaluatorsEvaluation by a group of expert evaluators StatisticsStatistics Statement by the courts itselfStatement by the courts itself

In 2005 the courts In 2005 the courts received the received the European Crystal European Crystal Scales of Justice Scales of Justice AwardAward

Thanks for your attention!Thanks for your attention!