The Common Assessment Framework and the modernization of the Paris Court of Appeals

1. The Common Assessment Framework and the modernization of the Paris Court of Appeals European CAF Event “Self-Assessment and beyond” Rome 17 –18 November 2003

2. Summary • Where • Who • When • Sticking points in the programme • General climate during this exercice • What can others learn

3. The Paris Law Courts

4. Court of Appeals

5. Who • The judicial system in France • The administrative division rules on disputes between private parties and public authorities • The judicial division rules on disputes between private parties and punishes offences against persons, property, and society

6. Who • The Court of Appeals reviews cases that have been judged previously • When one or more persons are dissatisfied with an initial judgement, they can file an appeal • It can either confirm the decision rendered by the lower court judges or invalidate it • A Court of Appealsis composed solely of professional judges

7. Who • The Paris Court of Appeals • 360 civil servants who work in the Court’s Registry • They work in close partnership with the judicial staff since they assist them in hearings and authenticate judicial decisions, record them, and preserve them • In 2002, the Court rendered 60,085 judgements. The average processing periodwas12.7 months as of June 2003

8. When • The pre-CAF deliberations regarding the modernization project • An inventory of favourable and unfavourable observations (i.e. strong points and weak points ) • The formulation of possible actions • Standardization of the various courses of action, in preparation for the implementation of a quality action plan

9. When • The CAF self-assessment process • Comprehensive communications efforts • The creation of a computerized database • The preparation of a planning chart • Training

10. When • Post-CAF follow-up operations • Development and implementation of an improvement plan • Monitoring progress and continuation of the assessment process

11. Allocation of possible courses of action according to their relative efficiency A (easily implemented with limited effectiveness) B (easily implemented with a high level of effectiveness) C (difficult to implement with a high level of effectiveness) D (difficult to implement with limited effectiveness)

12. Allocation of favourable and unfavourable observations according to the nine CAF criteria

13. Allocation of possible courses of action according to the nine CAF criteria

14. Allocation of possible courses of action in relation to their degree of progress according to the CAF rating method

16. Follow-up of the plan of action 2003 2004

17. Sticking points and conflicts • What were the sticking points? • The return of the clerks to the court • The absence of middle management • Compartmentalization of departments • Were there conflicts? • Some tension, some foot-dragging

18. The general climate during this exercice • CAF provided an opportunity • To build dialogue • To involve middle management • Empowerment of groups by allowing them to make proposals • CAF has provided impetus for change and the climate became increasingly cordial and creative

19. The results provided by the EIPA database Means Results

20. Thank you