Strasbourg, 09/10/2014 (Agence Europe) - The European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), which was set up in 1994, is a Council of Europe (CoE) intergovernmental institution whose role is to promote the public service of justice in the 47 member states. Its goal is to see how the various judicial systems work from day to day, said CEPEJ Secretary Stéphane Leyenberger, to take stock so as to check whether or not there is progress, or even if there is regression. Regression, however, is not something that has affected the 46 countries monitored as part of the fifth CEPEJ report that was published on Thursday 9 October. While Liechtenstein and San Marino did not take part in the CEPEJ investigation, Israel, a CoE observer country, did, thereby taking the number of countries to 46.
Information was gathered by means of an exhaustive questionnaire on budgetary resources (human, computing, etc) allocated to the judicial system, on the one hand, and, on the other, the case-flow in the courts or cases remaining outstanding. Also forming part of the investigation were relations between prosecutors, lawyers and clerks, and the issue of implementation of judicial proceedings. More than three million pieces of verified data are to be found in the CEPEJ database, which is public.
The first major point to emerge from the 2014 report is the continuing budget increase towards a justice which “doesn't know the crisis”, in the words of Leyenberger. This positive observation must, however, be nuanced with regard to Greece, Portugal and Spain, countries which have been hard hit by austerity where the justice ministries have not been spared the cuts, even though budgets are beginning to climb again.
Another interesting point, according to Leyenberger, is the increased financial contribution required of citizens who take their cases to the courts. In Europe, only France and Luxembourg provide free access to court. The trend towards self-financing for part of the cost is spreading and Austria even makes a profit on the fees it charges.
This trend is not to be condemned, says Leyenberger, as long as legal aid schemes exist alongside for those whose financial circumstances could hinder their taking a case to court. All European member states now have implemented legal aid schemes, the report notes, in both criminal and civil procedures.
Also to be noted is the increased use of information technologies in cases, with video-conferencing during trials or the electronic transfer of administrative documents, for instance. All of this, of course, is very strictly monitored and regulated.
Greater account is now taken of court users. The considerable attention focused on victims in the various judicial systems analysed is highlighted, as is that towards litigants, through a reduction in the timescale for compensation, in particular.
Courts, the report states, are generally able to cope with the volume of cases. Most member states are able to manage without increasing their backlogs, though variations can be observed, depending on the case categories involved. This could encourage states to review the organisation of the judiciary.
The functional independence of prosecutors is not a principle shared by all states, according to the report. Also highlighted is the “glass ceiling” that remains a reality in the judiciary. Progressive feminisation of the judiciary can be observed but it is not yet sufficient to ensure equal access to the judicial hierarchy. A further significant trend which is forecast to increase is the reduction in the number of courts in Europe in line with current reforms. The move is very much towards greater concentration. (VL)