1. Study session: evaluating activities of courts and judges Moderator: Frans van der Doelen Plenary meeting CEPEJ 7 December 2011

2. Structure of the study session Getting to know the participants of the study group How to evaluate performance? How to evaluate quality? State of the art in Europe? Conclusions after discussion in studygroup

3. CEPEJ: Development of tools Evaluating performance: clearance rate, disposition time and productivity Evaluating performance: clearance rate, disposition time and productivity Evaluating quality: handbook satisfaction surveys Evaluating quality: handbook satisfaction surveys

4. How to monitor performance?

5. Step 1 – the basic scheme Type of case Cases pending on 1.1.2008 New cases initiated in 2008 Resolved cases in 2008 Cases pending on 31.12.2008 1Civil cases 1aLitigious divorces 1bDismissals

6. Step 2 - calculate powerfull indicators with the basic scheme Clearance rate Disposition time Productivity/efficiency

7. CEPEJ indicators – applied

8. CEPEJ tools: monitoring quality Study: Quality management in courts and in the judicial organizations in 8 Council of Europe member States Study: Quality management in courts and in the judicial organizations in 8 Council of Europe member States Report: Conducting satisfaction surveys of court users in Council of Europe member states Report: Conducting satisfaction surveys of court users in Council of Europe member states Check www.coe.int/cepej !!! Check www.coe.int/cepej !!!www.coe.int/cepej

9. CEPEJ survey – recently applied Turin and Catania (Italy) Turin and Catania (Italy) Angoulême (France) Angoulême (France) National survey 24 courts (Netherlands) National survey 24 courts (Netherlands)

10. Results national satisfaction surveys in the Netherlands (2011) Presented in CEPEJ-newsletter no. 9, november 2011 by the Dutch Council of the Judiciary (Check www.coe.int/cepej);www.coe.int/cepej Especially note the summarising table, which compares the results of individual users and professional repeat-players on 24 concrete quality items!

11. Discussion state of the art concerning evaluation of courts and judges Judicial Systems 2010 (data 2008): Chapter 4: Users of courts Chapter 4: Users of courts Chapter 5: Courts Chapter 5: Courts

12. Performance monitoring Table 5.16: Number of countries using (mainly) performance and quality indicators for a proper functioning of courts (p. 99) 28-30 countries monitor performance of courts (incoming cases, backlogs, closed cases) < 10 countries monitor quality (satisfaction surveys, number of single judges) Discussion: what is the state of the art at this moment?

13. Satisfaction surveys Figure 4.10: Surveys conducted among users l or legal professionals to measure public confidence and/or statisfaction (p 80) 24 countries conduct surveys 18 countries do not conduct surveys Discussion: what is the state of the art at this moment?

14. Conclusions after discussion in the study group Efficiency and quality should be in balance (besides applying clearance rate, turn over ratio and productivity, the courts should also apply the CEPEJ-handbook on satisfaction surveys); European courts seem to make good progress in conducting satisfaction surveys (improvement expected compared to 2010 report); But: courts should not forget to conduct surveys among judges and staff (and also introduce peerreview among judges); Northern European countries focus on courts; Southern European countries focus on judges; Eastern European countries are building up evaluation capacity; Apply offensive media strategy on presenting the results (the results of surveys are often better than public image suggests);