cepej activities on court performance. activities of cepej in the field of… evaluation of judicial...
TRANSCRIPT
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!