SUPREME COURTS AS GUARANTEE FOR
EFFECTIVENESS OF JUDICIAL SYSTEMS IN
THE EUROPEAN UNION
Administration of Supreme Courts: focus on the allocation
of cases and length of proceedings
Lauranne Claus– University of Antwerp – Law Faculty
Administration of Supreme Courts: focus
on the allocation of cases and length of
proceedings
Introduction
Administration of courts: what?
Broad term
• Management of workloads, finances, infrastructure, HR and
communications
Report focuses on case management
• = “the effort by the courts to handle cases in such a manner
that they are resolved fairly and as promptly and
economically as is reasonable in the circumstances of the
case”
• Attention for case management grows due to the increasing
caseload in many courts
5
Administration of courts: why?
“Justice delayed is justice denied”
• Timeliness is one aspect of efficiency (one of the parametes of an
effective justice system)
• Timeliness is essential to ensure the smooth functioning of the
justice system
Art. 6 ECHR: right to a fair trial within a reasonable delay
• CEPEJ: reasonable time is the lower limit; the goal must be
timeliness, judicial proceedings without undue delays
6
How can Supreme Courts manage their case
flow?
Report focuses on two aspects:
• Allocation of cases; and
• Length of proceedings, especially
o Timeframes
o Statistical data and information to the public
o Suppression of procedural abuse
o Increased influx of cases
7
Allocation of cases: introductory remarks
& survey results
Allocation of cases
Proper organisation of the allocation of cases is a necessary
requirement for a timely delivery of justice
• Allocation of cases is closely related to the workload of
judges and thus affects the length of proceedings and the
efficiency of justice
The way in which cases are allocated may thus increases the
capacity of the court
9
Allocation of cases
ENCJ developed 11 minimum standards for the allocation of
cases
• Allocation should be based on objective preestablished criteria and have to be publicly available
• Criteria should include the impartiality of the judge,
the workload of the judge, the judge’s specialism etc.
• The parties need to be informed about the allocation
prior to the hearing / consideration of the case
10
Normative enactment of allocation rules
Most Supreme Courts confirmed that the allocation of cases
is determined by a normative enactment
In a minority of countries there is no internal or external
normative enactment that prescribes the allocation rules
(NL, LU, SE(A), SE)
11
Criteria used when allocating cases
In the majority of countries, the judges’ specialisation is a
criterion that is used to allocate the incoming cases
When distributing the cases, most Supreme Courts also
indicate to take the workload of the judges into account
• However, only a minority uses a weighted caseload
system
12
Information to the parties
At some Supreme Courts parties are informed about which
judges the case was allocated to (CZ, EE, IE, IT, LT, SK, ES, LV,
RO)
In other cases the parties are not informed spontaneously,
but they can search for the information themselves (PL,
PL(A), HU, PT, PT(A))
In other countries parties are not formally informed (FI, DE,
HU, SL, AT(A))
13
Allocation of cases: recommendations
Implement the minimum standards regarding
allocation of cases as identified by the ENCJ
Not yet fully implemented by all Supreme Courts (e.g.
weighted caseload, information to the parties)
Best practices:
• Complexity indicator applied by the Lithuanian
Supreme Court
•
15
Electronic notification system “Lexnet” of the Spanish
Supreme Court
Length of proceedings: introductory
remarks & survey results
Length of proceedings
Scope of the research is limited to:
• Timeframes
• Statistical data and information to the public
• Suppression of procedural abuse
• Increased influx of cases
17
Timeframes
Timeframes set measurable targets (for certain parts of the
procedure and / or the procedure as a whole) without
which it is not possible to measure and compare case
processing delays
Timeframes should be clearly measurable, realistic and
developed with the support of the stakeholders in order to
be effective
18
Timeframes
Although timeframes have a positive impact on the length
of proceedings, only a minority of the Supreme Courts has
introduced the use of timeframes (NL, FI, DE, SE(A), SL, LV)
• Supreme Administrative Court of Finland: timeframes
for the various stages of the proceedings and for the
proceedings as a whole
• Supreme Court of Latvia: targets for the duration of
proceedings are set in the civil and criminal
department’s work plan
19
In addition, only a minority of the Supreme Courts monitor
the case’s progress consistently and continiously (NL, FI, HU,
ES, SL, LV, PT(A), LT)
Statistical data & information to the public
Providing information on the expected length of a court
procedure increases the access to justice and transparency
The majority of the Supreme Courts publishes information
about the length of proceedings annually, mostly on their
website and/or in the annual report (CZ, NL, DE, IT, PL,
PL(A), HU, LT, LT(A), ES, AT(A), LV, PT(A))
• Some Supreme Courts publish these data more frequently
(FI, PL, SL)
20
Other Supreme Courts do not yet publish official data on
the average length of proceedings (EE, IE, SK, SE, SE(A), AT,
PT)
Suppression of procedural abuses
The judiciary is not the only player who influences the
length of proceedings
• E.g. parties could stall the proceedings
Judges should therefore have a pro-active role in case
management
Procedural sanctions for causing delay and vexatious
behaviour
21
Suppression of procedural abuse
Almost all Supreme Courts indicated that they are able to
take measures to prevent the abuse of right to trial
Measures vary:
• Conviction to pay the legal costs of the other party
• Fine
• Declare belated submissions inadmissable
• …
Importance of filter mechanisms!
22
Increased influx of cases
Some options:
• Flexible case assignment system
• Reallocation of judges
• CJJE: flexibility is desirable, but the independence of the
individual judge has to be respected
• Reduction of vacancies
• Restrictions on the right to file a case (filter mechanisms)
• …
23
Increased influx of cases
Most Supreme Courts indicated that they do not have many
options in case of a significant influx of cases
Most used option is adapting the way cases are allocated
between the different panels / judges
Increased use of the filter mechanism (cfr. suppression of
procedural abuse)
24
Length of proceedings: recommendations
Implement a system to control the length of proceedings
through the use of timeframes and the continuous and realtime monitoring of these timeframes
Set up realistic and measurable timeframes for the different
kind of cases and the different procedural stages
Consult with stakeholders regarding these timeframes
Electronic monitoring and early warnings
Best practice:
• Supreme Administrative Court of Finland: differentiated
approach + involvement of stakeholders
• Early warnings in the Hungarian BIIRO programme
26
Publish the agreed timeframes as well as statistics
about the length of proceedings per type of case
At least once a year, e.g. in the annual report
Best practice:
• Length of proceedings calculator on the website of the
Hungarian National Office for the Judiciary
• Calculator indicates the expected length of proceedings at a
given court for a specific type of case
27
Judges have to show pro-active case management
Set firm and credible trial dates
Use all possible options to expedite proceedings
Sanction parties that cause delay or that present vexatious
behaviour
28
Provide procedural sanctions for causing delay and
vexatious behaviour
Different options (e.g. fine, filter mechanisms)
29
Provide a flexible case assignment system, as well as
the reallocation of judges as an ultimum remedium
Besides the more obvious actions (such as appointing more
judges), a flexible case assignment system allows the court
to cope better with an increased influx of cases
As an ultimum remedium, when other options do not allow
the court to cope with the incoming number of cases, the
reallocation of judges could be an option (e.g. Curia of
Hungary)
30