Eastern Partnership Enhancing Judicial Reform in the Eastern Partnership Countries
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Eastern Partnership Enhancing Judicial Reform in the Eastern Partnership Countries Efficient Judicial Systems Report 2014 Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law Strasbourg, December 2014 1 The Efficient Judicial Systems 2014 report has been prepared by: Mr Adiz Hodzic, Member of the Working Group on Evaluation of Judicial systems of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) Mr Frans van der Doelen, Programme Manager of the Department of the Justice System, Ministry of Security and Justice, The Netherlands, Member of the Working Group on Evaluation of Judicial systems of the CEPEJ Mr Georg Stawa, Head of the Department for Projects, Strategy and Innovation, Federal Ministry of Justice, Austria, Chair of the CEPEJ 2 Table of content Conclusions and recommendations 3 Part I: Comparing Judicial Systems: Performance, Budget and Management Chapter 1: Introduction 11 Chapter 2: Disposition time and quality 17 Chapter 3: Public budget 26 Chapter 4: Management 35 Chapter 5: Efficiency: comparing resources, workload and performance (28 indicators) 44 Armenia 46 Azerbaijan 49 Georgia 51 Republic of Moldova 55 Ukraine 58 Chapter 6: Effectiveness: scoring on international indexes on the rule of law 64 Part II: Comparing Courts: Caseflow, Productivity and Efficiency 68 Armenia 74 Azerbaijan 90 Georgia 119 Republic of Moldova 139 Ukraine 158 Part III: Policy Making Capacities 178 Annexes 185 3 Conclusions and recommendations 1. Introduction This report focuses on efficiency of courts and the judicial systems of Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine, commonly referred the Easter Partnership Countries (EPCs) after the Eastern Partnership Programme of the European Union. The aim of the report is to give a comprehensive analysis of the judicial systems and review more systematically the input, workload and performances of both the national judicial system and the courts and the way this is managed in EPC. The report is a follow up and update of an earlier report published in English and Russian in March 2013 at the website of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ).1 This report, besides presenting recent figures, contains three new elements added to this update: Indicating the effect of measures; Exploring quality indicators and rule of law indexes; Rating courts based on the use of resources and performance. The report consists of three parts. Part I analyses the budgets, management and overall performance of the judicial system of the EPCs. The analysis at large is based on the data of the report 2014 (data 2012) of the CEPEJ concerning European Judicial Systems. Part II contains an elaborate comparative analysis of the budgets and performance of courts within each of the EPCs. This analysis is based on court data that the countries provided at request to the Working Group on Efficient Judicial Systems.2 Part III concerns a revisit of the normative framework on the institutional and policy making capacities that allow the EPCs to make strategic choices concerning the functioning of the judiciary. This framework was applied in a seminar that was organised for the EPC representatives in Strasbourg, in November 2014. 2. Part I: Comparing judicial systems: performance, budget and management Part I of the report is an extract from European Judicial Systems 2014 (data 2012) report focussing on budgets, management and backlogs of the judicial systems in the EPCs. In order to compare the situation in the EPCs with European trends – the report uses as a reference European minimums, maximums and averages/medians. The relative wealth and size of the EPCs of course are taken into account. The scores on the EPCs on international indexes on the rule of law are explored in order to better understand the indications on the effectiveness of the judicial systems. The following conclusions and recommendations have been drawn up: Performance: disposition time and quality In general the disposition time of civil cases are the shortest of all court sectors in EPC. Developments since 2010 show a mixed picture. Disposition time of litigious commercial cases is getting longer in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Ukraine, and getting shorter in Georgia and the Republic of Moldova. Keeping in mind this mixed picture (in some case types disposition time increased, in others it decreased), a closer monitoring and evaluation of the civil sectors of courts is needed (see Part II of this report). Insolvency cases appear to last about six times longer than a general litigious case in EPCs and need a special attention. Disposition time of administrative cases is longer than of the civil ones in 2012: in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia it is about twice long. In almost all the EPCs (except Ukraine) the disposition time increased substantially since 2010. The limited functioning of the administrative sector of the judiciary seems to be a structural matter in all the EPCs. It is recommended to review the current laws and 1http://www.coe.int/t/DGHL/cooperation/cepej/cooperation/Eastern_partnership/FINAL%20efficient%20judicial%2 0systems%20EN%20March%202013.pdf 2 The working group has been crated within the framework of the joint project “Enhancing Judicial Reform in the Eastern Partnership Countries” funded by the European Union and implemented by the Council of Europe. 4 practices concerning the administrative judicial sector and redesign it if necessary (see also Part II of this report for more details at the national courts level). Disposition time of criminal cases is also increasing in almost all of the EPCs, except Ukraine, with 10-50%. The increase in more specific crime cases, like robbery and intentional homicide, is even more dramatic. The doubling of disposition time in almost all of the EPCs (except Azerbaijan for robbery) for these two case types, should be of great concern for all the EPCs, as these criminal cases have a big impact on public trust in general. The adaption and implementation of new criminal laws by the criminal sector of courts should be facilitated well and monitored intensively (see Part II of this report for more details at the national courts level). In order to achieve practical improvement of disposition time it is recommended to implement at the CEPEJ-Time Management Checklist (Checklist of indicators for the analysis of lengths of proceedings in the justice system)3. It is a tool available for internal use of courts whose purpose is to help justice systems to collect appropriate information and analyse relevant aspects of the duration of judicial proceedings, in order to reduce undue delays, ensure effectiveness of the proceedings and provide necessary transparency to the users of the justice systems. The report presents a preliminary and exploratory exercise on quality indicators of the EPCs based on the CEPEJ data of 2012. The results suggest that Georgia has gathered several good practices in this respect, for example concerning aspects like appeal ratios, disciplinary proceedings, sanctions and challenges against judge, the probation period for judges, the combination of functions of judges, user surveys and quality standards. Also Azerbaijan has valuable practices in stimulating the quality of the judiciary considering setting time limits for various complaint proceedings, the remuneration of judges at the beginning of the career, the relative high level of the budget for education and training and also survey users and quality standards. It is exchange of these practices within the EPCs is recommended. In order to improve the quality of the judiciary also the implementation of CEPEJ- Handbook for conducting satisfaction surveys for court users is recommended. Budget Between 2010-2012 in all of the EPCs there an increase of the relative budget for courts, as it was also the case between 2008-2010. But the increase is still smaller than the European median, so the courts in almost all of the EPCs (except the Republic of Moldova) are underfunded. In order to meet the European benchmarks the budgets for the courts should be increased more in the near future. The (budgetary) balance between judiciary and public prosecution in the EPCs should be a point for consideration, as to some extent it is also reflected in the increasing disposition time in criminal cases since 2010. In some of the EPCs large-scale judicial reforms and rebalancing the role of judges took place within the legal system, specifically in relation to the traditionally powerful Soviet Prokuratura. In Armenia and Georgia the budgetary level of prosecution services is slightly less than the European benchmark. In Azerbaijan and the Republic of Moldova this level is slightly higher. In Ukraine the relative large budgets for public prosecuting remain to be high and even are increasing. In the European context of comparatively small number of court cases per capita. In this respect the development of legal aid in the EPCs is important for the issue of access to justice. While Georgia and the Republic of Moldova are achieving almost the level of the European benchmark, a system of legal aid is improving in Armenia and Georgia (data for Azerbaijan, Republic of Moldova and Ukraine are not available). Effort for improvement of legal aid should be intensified and continued in the next years. In 2012 the total public budget for judiciary, prosecution and legal aid in the Republic of Moldova is in line with the European benchmark, while Ukraine even exceeds it. Concerning Georgia and Azerbaijan there appears to be relative underfunding of the judicial system (data for Armenia is not 3 https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1031259&Site=COE 5 available). Since 2010 budgets in the EPC increased more than the European median. Continuation of this policy - with special attention to budget for legal aid - may result in meeting European standards in the near future. Management Scaling up the size of and merging courts can, when properly managed, raise opportunities for improving the efficiency and quality of judicial services, as for example reforms in Georgia have demonstrated.