Supporting Judicial Reform in 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. Comparing Countries Comparing Courts Policy making capacities Efficient Judicial Systems reportMethodology

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

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@coe.int http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/capacitybuilding/ Judicial component