samedi 28 juillet 2012

Child protection: here again, easier to create walls to build bridges...

Child protection: here again, easier to create walls to build bridges...
By jacques - louis.colombani 26/02/08
Last comment added 4 days ago
Act No. 2007-293 5 March 2007 reforming child protection is not made really for the lawyers and the contradictory.
It should not be surprising in this context has been the subject of few comments on this side of the bar.
US aircraft referred to the risk of a contradictory that goes more and more away from procedures that relate to children in danger.
Decree No. 2002-361 of 15 March 2002 amending the new code of civil procedure relating to the educational assistance may seem today outdated in the role of counsel in the process of educational assistance and support of minors.
Now, with a display purpose of decompartmentalization, is the President of the General Council which is responsible first in the matter.
The General Council is a political entity which provides policy guidance to associations.
Social workers take important decisions for the future of children, and we will discuss how this is consistent with the exercise of parental authority, often in a context of emergency and deficiencies...
Some parents live intervention policies and social as workers or an insult, at least an intrusion in their lives.
Read the testimony of Mr. DARBES on a non-place in educational support.
Certainly, the dual device administrative and judicial persists, it is possible to expect a return to the balance of the contradictory that would be consistent with the international conventions on the protection of the child.
This should be modify the Decree of 2002 to fit the new text of 2007?
Allow lawyers to be informed as the families of the conduct of the measure and provide more regular judicial appointments would be a good thing, it would avoid can be let cristaliser sometimes situations of double conflict of loyalties which the child may suffer...
** P. Verdier, the act reforming the child protection, a step of protection, a reduction in rights, JDJ-RAJS, no. 265, May 2007, p. 22; J.-p.. Bichwiller, A compromise text? JDJ-RAJS, no. 266, June 2007
F *** study, P. CHAMBONCEL-SALIGUE, Rev. Jur. comm. & fam., 2007 - n ° 11 - reform of the child protection: the challenge of cooperation...
Published on jacques - louis.colombani

SUPPORT THE CHILD HAS ASE AND THE EVOLUTION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE PARENTS.

SUPPORT THE CHILD HAS ASE AND THE EVOLUTION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE PARENTS.
Evelyne CORNOLO, Inspector ASE of Val de Marne
A Mr. a. Bruel 1998 report concluded: If parent, it is be actor of the transmission of life, it is at the same time feel responsible for his own children and all children of the continuity of the world. The magistrate defended in this report the responsibility of each and other learning back to parenting his importance in the interest of the child.
Accompany the family and the support in the exercise of parenting requires to collect the legal aspect, and the issue dealt with now on that day shows legislative and regulatory developments important, whether recognition of the rights of the parents of children and parental authority. Thus, before talking about more precise and more practical way the consequences of child separation / ASE placement parents, I would remind some elements of this evolution.
EVOLUTION OF THE TEXTS: RECOGNITION OF RIGHTS AND PARENTAL AUTHORITY
With regard to the rights of the parents, as early as 1984, the Act of 6 June was an important advance. On the right of the families in their relations with the child protection services, she notices several principles:
·Right to be informed about the conditions and consequences of social intervention
·Right to be accompanied by a person of his choice in its applications
·Right for parents to participate in key decisions concerning their child
·Right of the child to be associated with the measures
·Right to appeal against decisions of admission to the social assistance to childhood
The Act thus reaffirmed the scope of parental authority, which means that parents are informed and associated with any decision concerning their children. It to legitimize the notion of contract who founded the relations in the context of administrative protection. The concept of parental rights is in place gradually and induces changes in practices.
The international rights of the child Convention has just continue the evolution by considering that the child now exists for himself, he has rights, it is an adult to become parents or their surrogate have to lead gradually to adulthood.
Without tedious history with regard to parental authority, I would like to just remember that the notion of paternal power disappeared from our legislation until 1970. The concept of shared parental authority has evolved since, the grooming and the successive reforms occurred until March 2002, where the law on parental authority, whose major objective is to ensure equality among all children regardless of the marital status of their parents. This law said that parental authority was intended for the interest of the child, and therefore, it strives to put this interest at the centre of every parental authority system.
Parental authority is therefore defined as follows:
"set of rights and duties aimed the interests of the child." It belongs to the father and mother until majority or emancipation of the child to protect his safety, health or morals, to ensure his education and allow its development, in respect for the person. "Parents associate the child in decisions that concern them, according to their age and maturity."
RIGHTS OF PARENTS WHOSE CHILDREN ARE PLACED HAS SOCIAL ASSISTANCE HAS CHILDREN
Content of the right to custody of the ASE service
Subject to the powers granted to the parental authority, measures taken under the educational assistance cannot in any case porter parental authority that hold or legal representatives, and to access and the right to accommodation (Code of Social Action and families). The Civil Code provides that the father and mother, the child gave rise to a measure of educational assistance, retain their parental authority over him and exercise all the attributes that are not irreconcilable with the application of the measure.
To the extent that parents are interested in a normal manner to their child, there was no reason to not entrust all decisions of some importance for the life of the child, the day-to-day decisions being taken by the service in agreement with them.
The father and mother, the child is the object of a measure of educational assistance, retain the exercise of parental authority over their child but only if this is consistent with the measures decided upon by the judge: those relating to the person of the child and those relating to property (legal administration).
ATTRIBUTES RELATED TO THE PERSON OF THE CHILD:
the right of custody: it is the right to withhold the child at home. "the child cannot without permission of the father and mother leaving the family home. It is the right to interfere in personal relationships, with the exception, unless serious grounds, grandparents. Only the Court can grant a right of access, for example, a former childminder. A right of access may be limited to the national territory.
The right of monitoring: monitor its associates or correspondence for example.
The right to education: choice of public education or private religion, for example.
Specific rights: right to consent to marriage, adoption, emancipation, the military commitment, right to authorize medical interventions, the abortion, right to represent the child in court, to request an educational assistance measure, to delegate this parental authority.
† THE ATTRIBUTES RELATING TO THE PROPERTY OF THE CHILD
The administration and enjoyment of the property of the child belong jointly to the father and the mother, when they jointly exercise parental authority.
RIGHT RELATIONSHIP, RIGHT OF VISIT AND OUTPUT FOR A GIVEN CHILD TO ESA BY A MAGISTRATE
-The ASE service exercises these rights in accordance with the family: the service cannot, of itself, in no case delete those rights.
-The magistrate has regulated these rights, visits, outings: the ASE service remains, however, fixed terms and conditions for the exercise of these rights. In challenge to a decision of the administration regarding the right of visit or any other decision made by the ASE service under the parental authority which still belongs to parents, children judge is always competent.
-The parents maintain a right of correspondence, which terms and conditions are set by the judge.
COMMON ACTS:
The 22.07.1987 Act introduced in legislation the concept of common acts: when the child is entrusted to a third party, it performs all usual acts relating to monitoring and education. The ASE service must be able to exercise all the usual acts relating to the monitoring and education of the child.
THE NON-COMMON ACTIONS:
For non-customary acts which engage the fate of the child, on important acts serious conflict, the juvenile judge must intervene and confirm or set aside the intervention of the ASE service on the issue by a likely Court of appeal by the parents. This procedure is exceptional (authorization to operate, initially abroad with a school...)
THE WISHES OF THE CHILD:
Must be naturally taken account of the will of the child, it being the first concerned. The law provides child-specific powers: the minor himself signed his contract of apprenticeship, can obtain contraception and treat anonymously for sexually transmitted diseases, seize the children judge...The Civil Code provides, inspired directly from the Convention international rights of the child, the possibility for the minor capable of discernment, to request to be heard in any proceedings concerning him and be accompanied by any person of his choice.
Contribution 9 b
THE EVOLUTION OF THE WORK OF THE CCAS PILOT
Ginette PEREIRA, special education teacher
For a long time, judges of the children or the parents give up children to the social assistance to childhood; they were placed in institutions or foster families, without the accompanying work thought, where some work about the parent-child bond.
The Bianco LAMY report has highlighted the shortcomings of the follow-up of children who were entrusted to the social assistance to childhood.
From this, the political will of the General Council helped in our Department, as early as 1983/1984 the progressive implementation of the child teams.
These teams are always mission monitoring of children. Indeed, every young person is followed by a social worker, external referent rather than investment. It is responsible to ensure the maintenance of the links and of course to work with parents to consider the return of the child as soon as possible.
In my professional career, I have seen that we are moving a virtual absence of work around the link parent/child to another extreme, that was to keep at all costs the parent/child relationship.
Today, the work of the referent focuses more on the taking into account of the uniqueness of each situation (which is more appropriate because more individualized).
This work seems to me more consistent because it takes more into account family dysfunctions, pathology of parents and the needs of the child based on age and its history.
Several statutes distinguish children entrusted to the social assistance to childhood:
AP
GP
Pupil or State
D.A.P.
They are considered the family history and the danger or risk of danger experienced by the child. It is not frozen, it may change in placement.
The provisional home is a one year renewable, maximum administrative contract signed by the Inspector and the parents at their request. This type of placement is often suite aun educational work upstream which has highlighted a disturbing family situation worsening. Social workers are finding that educational support is not enough or does not give the desired results and will progressively lead parents to take ownership of it.
This decision developed in consultation with the family must be understood by all that work will continue during the placement. Indeed, they will remain the privileged interlocutors and will be associated as it can to the everyday life of their child. The exercise of their parental authority will regularly sought.
The status of interim custody acts on judicial decision, sometimes in emergency. This type of placement is considered when there is a danger or risk of danger for the child.
This placement is an authoritarian measure, judges of children seeking membership of parents or at least try to get to the understanding of this decision.
Indeed, when tensions extreme, especially with teenagers, it is not rare that parents ask themselves a temporary home to the magistrate, because they realize that they are in a stalemate.
The placement may appear as a temporary means of family tensions.
Toutcomme with the previous status, parents will be regularly sought in the exercise of their parental authority.
When children are placed, they are sometimes psychological educativeet support at their institution.
At the same time, if that change is real and that a return of the child to be considered, it is necessary to meet regularly with parents, even if sometimes it is long and difficult to implement.
These meetings will allow them to evoke the suffering that generates the placement, but also be aware of family dysfunction and the absence of secure framework that required separation.
Often, educational support will allow them to regain confidence in themselves and gradually reclaiming their parenthood.
Parents will be to the extent of the possible associated with education, important decisions concerning health, daily life, evolution and the school orientation of their child (meetings of teachers, starting in transplanted class, signing of the various documents).
This accompanying work will also position the child in his family, including the extended family (grandparents, aunts, uncles...). But also to encourage, or even develop as much that it can the links between siblings, including when it comes to blended families
Indeed, it is sometimes found when there is separation, one of the parents is not present and more actually occupies its place.
The work undertaken with the father with the mother, but also the fact that the child outside the family context, both will sometimes allow the parent who was relatively outside, be aware of this lack and gradually reclaiming its place to the child. He may again enter it in his family and cultural history. (mention two examples)
Of course, this work of parent/child relationship is done generalementen closely with the educational team in place of placement of the child.
In placement situations, the referent is a third moderator.
When parents are suffering from a pathologielourde, the work is often difficult to implement and therefore, it seems to me essential to work with specialized, to identify all the areas of work which will enable the parent to exercise his parenting. This type of work requires that the parent agrees to be followed and that the institutions are in capacity to implement a real partnership working in the interest of the families (exchanges, reflections and meetings).
Educational support will allow the child to meet when it is possible the ill parent.
In the majority of these situations, when the child could benefit from a regular accompaniment and reassuring, he will be more accepting and gradually understand the actual psychological difficulties of the parent.
This requires, of course, the time but it seems to me that the child is in need of this knowledge to build and grow.
In these situations, the choice of the institution that will host the child is important, because the teams will generally to manage parent/child meetings and mediate, this means that they are able and ability to assure them
-illustrate with Ms. M, to share its pathology and his family environment, this MOM was able to protect his children, where a reporting and three children
More young people having achieved or close their majority are investment applications.
Our work will be to assess the application of the young who often appears as "victim": a family, confrontational climate sometimes with physical or moral violence.
It is common, in effect make the majority of the young re - appearance of old episodes that have not been developed or settled or then the parents are unable to access the application for a bit of autonomy of their young (especially if it does not correspond to the parental ideal).
Parental authority is indeed temporary, yet parents continue after the majority of their child, the obligation of support. As a result, parents will be solicited during the evaluation of the application, so that the social worker has a better perception of the difficulties encountered, knowing that the placement is an important decision that should not be unmarked
Indeed, the period of adolescence is expressed sometimes as a crisis of the young, which necessarily puts parents in a difficult position.
They feel powerless, questioned in their parental role.
To, their participation assessment and the development of the project that will be put in place, may avoid the conflict is crystallized around the problem with the young, which may lead a sharp break.
It would be experienced by parents as "a break", or even a deep narcissistic injury that may not facilitate the re-establishment of dialogue and communication with their young.
With hindsight, the work done in these situations of investment, leads to the finding that no connection will be a pain for the young at one time or another.
It seems to me difficult to the economy of this work with parents that will perhaps lead to the placement.
But one also finds that there are sometimes other solutions than the placement:
- either a relay by a member of the extended family
- either a homecare with educational support.
He must sometimes demonstrate imagination and flexibility to try to implement other less radical than the investment solutions
CONCLUSION:
The work of the referent: work long-term and patience, it turns out that a heavy problem may may not be lead parents to exceed their dysfunction.
Therefore, it seems important to respect their shortcomings, rather than make them recipients of requirements that they are not able to provide for the moment.
It seemed important to associate Ms. BOCQUIE, psychologist at home the Relais de VITRY who put in place with members of the education team, meetings with parents, whose children are entrusted to them.
Contribution 9 c
WORKING WITH FAMILIES IN THE DEPARTMENTAL HOME RELAY
Corinne BOQUIE, psychologist
Exercising as a psychologist for more than twenty years in the departmental home relay to Vitry, I could attend the evolution of work with families whose children were placed in the relay, either by court action or by administrative action.
I propose a brief historical overview of working with families, in the relay, since 1981.
At the time, interviews with the families were not formalised, it is barely if parents crossed the portal to fetch their children and meet with educators, still less the Director or the psychologist! It is the first form of meeting which was listed officially at the level of the Protocol of admission at this time.
Therefore, before the final admission of the young, a maintenance is proposed in the family, in the presence of the young of the relay team (including an educator, the Chief educator, psychologist) but the external referent, to clarify the reasons for the placement and the issues of the. Indeed, it seems essential to more closely associate the family investment approach, to develop maximum collaboration of the parents with the educational team. This confidence, the most immediate attempt possible, parents vis à vis of the structure of their child home is designed to promote the faster a sense of confidence for the young, to increase the chances of a good adaptation within the home.
Obviously, a young, for which a relationship of dialogue and confidence quickly established with his family, allow more to invest in the relay and to feel well. Cohesion and dialogue between his family and the educational team, promote the development of a sense of security among the young, thus limiting the appearance of a conflict of loyalties.
In the logic of family meetings established at admission, we have established quarterly interviews always involving the external referent in meetings with the family. In these interviews, family issues, personal difficulties of the young are addressed specifically to monitor the young and his family for the project initially posed upon admission and the reason for placement.
In many cases, these interviews helped to work more in depth the relationship of parent to the young, increase development in words what is problematic and which generates a dysfunction of family intra communication.
At other times, listening to each, the movement of the floor allowed the emergence of family problems we bringing to offer direction in external consultation of type family or marital therapy.
With regard to the implementation of therapies for the young, they are prepared in the placement, often put in place during the stay in the relay, in agreement with the family.
In addition to these family discussions, it is apparent more and more necessary to involve parents in support of their child, both at the level of the daily, (accompaniments health, purchases of clothing, meetings with the school etc....) and at the level of community life of the home.
Beyond certain festivals, the project correspondence and exchange with the young people of Burkina Faso, established since 1998, home was an opportunity to set up an association to which many parents have acceded, convinced of the interest of such an exchange for their children.
This experience has led to the establishment of actual exchanges between correspondents. Sometimes a dozen youth relay leave in Burkina Faso to meet their counterparts in a totally unknown context for them; Sometimes these are Burkina Faso who come in the relay, discover the universe of another continent... in the meantime, we have mounted a parallel project to organize an exchange of educators: over a period of 4 to 6 weeks, French educator went to Burkina Faso while an African educator is working in the relay. This fits to a sharing of educational practices, where each can bring something to the other.
On the educational plan, this project interested throughout the House, both young people and their parents. When the Burkina Faso come in the relay, it is an opportunity to holiday where parents are widely associated, in the idea of sharing with the whole House, but especially with their child, in a context of life. At the last coming of correspondents, some parents welcomed the correspondent of their child, a day, see a night at home and it was a great moment rich in memories for each large and small...
Finally, in the field of working with families, we have in place since 1998des meetings of Parents in a spirit similar to that practiced in the hosting educational in Val de Marne (formerly known under the name "La Vie au Grand Air"). These meetings are intended to offer families who wish, a space of speech where the subject of the education of the children can be addressed, discussed, exchanged.
He has appeared quite obviously that some parents were poor with educational problems, and sought not better to invest a place where the floor to circulate. With this in mind, it seemed important to offer a space where freedom of expression would be preferred, to us where an equality would be strict to further develop the "adults" side rather than "professionals-parents". Indeed, are we not all adults and therefore former child? having to do with our own parents? being parents ourselves (or potentially for some educators)?
These questions lead us to a common pole where the subject of the education of children for us. Our own references necessarily are part of our cultural background, and even if specific formations came to support our personal references, our memories, our experience, are present and can also serve as an example... In this atmosphere where various themes to put in scene, the floor exchange, for alliances in every sense. In this Exchange, alliances are possible at all levels, encouraging decompartmentalization "professionals/parents"... Indeed, the themes, more personal examples can illustrate a connection, promoting the expression of other point of view, other memorabilia...
Generally, the spirit of conviviality is voluntarily established, coffee, on Saturday morning at 10 a.m., during that children are in school. It ends with an aperitif during which children join, delighted to share this time in combined adults. Meetings take place on a rate of once every two or three months, and are always followed by a report sent to all parents, so that each associate feels and can join the next.
On the request of the parents, topics may be offered in advance, to allow some to think before the meeting. Also, always at the request of some parents who regularly attend the group, it was decided that parents whose young people return home will be invited throughout the year following the return, to maintain the possibility to attend this floor space for them.
Of course, for (rare) families who come regularly, the invitation can continue on a longer time. For the moment, we are not overwhelmed by a too abundant attendance of parents whose children have returned home. Only, the September meeting has several parents whose children have returned home, but to share a few rare exceptions, it seems a meeting after the return suffice... even if the invitations are addressed during the entire year.
In terms of attendance, on a population of 31 young people (including a few siblings), we receive on average (and fluctuating manner) about 6 to 8 parents of children and 1 in 3 parents of children returned to the home.
At these meetings, some members of the educational team of the relay are always present, namely the socio-educational framework, the psychologist, Director as well as an educator of each group, see more on the days.
The meetings were still held, even in small numbers and we see that the Group has a Faculty of quite surprising self-management that clears our reluctance in the beginning, where we were concerned not be able "to face" to possible difficulties. Today we see that the parents are each in their own way and, according to the State of the day, they will speak or will be listening to the other... parents in conflictual rupture will manage not to come at the same time or can tolerate during this time of meeting... in General, parents who move perfectly know what they come to tap and use this space for quite appropriately.
This form of approach and dialogue has no therapeutic claim itself, well that some evidence would tend to prove the contrary.
This group focuses on what everyone can experience the fact of talk and feel recognized through his word, is to listen to the other and echoing with its own resonances. It seems that for some parents, this friendly place is one of the only places to break their loneliness and their lack of dialogue. Some parents are all amazed to see that they agree with such educator... that they are able to take part in a discussion, they have a point of view and that they were able to express it etc... it is a place favourable to reappropriate the thought.
In this sense, offer some particularly poor parents a space where their dignity as adult passes by their word, can give to these meetings a character otherwise therapeutic, all the less important on the narcissistic plan at the level of the restoration of the image itself.
We can only regret of not be able to mobilize more parents, but we know that for some, the discussion represents a difficulty which will require considerable time to overcome the. Some parents can join in festivals or performances by their child, who is a less threatening way to get a foot in the institution.
Topics as diverse as: "may be regarded as an educational response slap?", "how to manage the outputs of youth, breast of the fireplace at home?",
"pocket money is required? "how learning to young people to manage their spending?", "how to prepare the return home."... themselves, and sometimes returned over the years, over the new parents...
The debates during meetings of parents have influenced the evolution of the educational track at the institution. For example, at the request of parents, he was approached the question of the return to the House, where some parents have regret too brutal cut with the home: "our child returns home at the end of the transfer of July, and after, is finished, it reviews, to talk about the return, how is going back to school...". "We have therefore put in place since September 2002, at the free convenience of parents, maintenance of balance during the quarter following the return of the child to the home, if possible in the presence of the referent outside if it is still mandated to report on the progress of this new organization of life.
Is sometimes the opportunity to adjust certain things, including when it appears that a child is much less autonomous, that he made the whims, that certain behaviour disorders reappear... educator can verbalize her surprise as the child or such behaviour... wonder openly about these differences... open a breach in the discussion, allow the child to explain, see complain also on parental attitudes that deserve to be spoken... it is sometimes the opportunity to reintroduce the interest of therapy for the child (if that) (is not already set up) to he reserve a private outside the family space.
Hindsight is not great, but it is already apparent that the majority of the families concerned responded favourably to the invitation for a meeting. This allowed for one or other of the families, proper use trust established in the placement of their child, to address family difficulties that had never been previously talk... for others, it is an opportunity to express his relief where the return is going better than what they were!
Finally, always in the spirit of improving the work with families and the quality of parent-child relationship, we have built a studio within the institution, to provide a more user-friendly home and visit place. This local, arranged a living room, with a kitchen and sanitary allows parents to see their (child (s) on the location of the placement (when only the right of access is allowed or for parents S.D.F).) Conditions of visits are much more pleasant in this place that is outside the Group of life, and promotes the establishment of a certain relational quality where shares of life can be put in place. It is an opportunity to take a snack together, make a game... it is even possible that some parents are making a meal to share with their child in a day.
Depending on the situation, a professional of the House can be present all or part of the meeting, then acting Ombudsman.
This place is also invested in certain meetings of family.
This is a brief overview of the work that engages with the families, through investment in medium and long stay in the home the relay. We start from the idea that the family is irreplaceable, unique, and that, even if it is necessary sometimes to register a temporary or longer separation in the family studies of the child, it seems essential to teach him to do with the reality of her parents, while associating them up to their child support, to the extent of the possibilities, each situation.

mercredi 25 juillet 2012

EUROMED JUSTICE II: "quality of justice"


EUROMED JUSTICE II: "quality of justice"
Luxembourg, 15-17 June 2010
Assess the quality of justice:
(the work of the European Commission for the efficiency of justice CEPEJ) Council of Europe
The Council of Europe is the European common home founded on human rights, the rule of law and pluralist democracy since 1949. These founding values of whole European living are now extended to forty seven States, almost all of the countries of the European continent.
It is therefore of course the duty of the institution in Strasbourg to mount in the front line when it comes to defend and to promote the development of independent and impartial justice. Could nevertheless be tempted to ask if this function of "custodian of the temple" of the independence of the judiciary is compatible with the requirements of quality and quality measurement which are attached, and which involve the development of principles and methods of evaluation systems of justice and administration. Can we speak of justice as a public service without weakening the independence and authority of the judiciary? Should we introduce in the judicial systems of the concepts of management and methods of organization and of imported control other areas that may seem a priori remote of the specificities of justice?
If one is afraid of independence not as a privilege of the judge but a right of citizens, it opens a very current reflection field in Europe. The independence and impartiality of the judge are indeed meaningful if they are designed as an element of public policy: justice at the service of the community. Administer and evaluate the quality of the public service of justice becomes a requirement for European States.
By creating the European Commission for the efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), the Council of Europe has firmly entered this logic: promote the effectiveness and quality of judicial systems, in the service of the citizens, without never the slightest concession to the full respect of the fundamental principles enshrined in the European Convention of human rights.
The fundamental principle of the independence of the judges to the necessary development of the public policies of justice in Europe
Articles 5 and 6 of the European Convention on human rights are the normative base on which Europe has built and consolidated the fundamental principle of the independence of the judiciary, the rule of law pillar. This principle is placed under the uncompromising control of the European Court of the rights of the man who, over several decades, developed a clear and constant jurisprudence in this area. Furthermore, the Committee of Ministers, the Parliamentary Assembly and the Council of Europe human rights Commissioner are the independence of the judges one of the keystones of their policies to develop the European normative corpus, supporting the reforms, institutional and legislative in Member States and monitor compliance with the commitments made by these States in their entry into the family of democracies European. In addition, several programs targeted cooperation of the Council of Europe have for objectives, since 15 years, anchoring the independence of the judicial system, including in the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe. Moreover, the Consultative Council of European judges (CCJE 1) ensures compliance with the principles of independence and impartiality of the judges, which he detailed the modalities of implementation in several opinion2.
Being posed and protected, must these fundamental principles confront the realities of the functioning of the judicial system. Thus the CCJE says in his opinion N ° 1 (2001) 3: "independence [of judges] is not a prerogative or a privilege vested in their own interest, but it is guaranteed in the interest of the rule of law and of those who seek and demand justice". The question of the quality of justice therefore leads to wonder about the link between justice and society.
Justice is a public service. Certainly quite apart utility, which can be shared between different actors belonging to the three Executive, legislative and judicial powers, but whose production - judgments - cannot be the sole judge. This specificity do however not lessen it some requirements of the relationship with the policy and with the citizens. By posing the question of the effectiveness of justice, it is part of an approach to public policy, involving policy-makers (ministries of justice, parliaments), the judicial institutions (councils of justice, courts) and litigants-taxpayers, and means (budgets, staff, equipment), are concerned processes and relations between the actors. It must therefore be the interaction between judges, law practitioners and litigants, organized by systems, rules, procedures, and funded by public money.
The European justice standards developed within the Council of Europe lead to same evidence: it is not enough to have tried independently to have tried many. Thus the European Convention of human rights is not limited in its Article 6, to require of the Contracting States that they guarantee the independence and impartiality of the tribunal. He also asked that they organize the system so that everyone can see his cause heard "within a reasonable time". This device is clarified by the case law of the Strasbourg Court and completed by several recommendations of the Committee of Ministers to Member States concerning procedures4, the access to the juge5, the operation of the tribunaux6 and the role of the actors in the judiciaire7 system. For its part, the Consultative Council of European judges (CCJE) defined principles for financing of the courts, responsibility of judges, expeditious procedures and relations between justice and the society.8.
The exponential growth in the number of cases brought before the European Court of human rights, primarily motivated by malfunctions of justice, shows the need to continue reform of national judicial systems. The Council of Europe and resolutely joined this logic to promote the quality of judicial systems, in the service of European citizens.
There is thus an important evolution in the way that it is afraid of the justice issues: what could appear to be taboo for some is changing, sometimes under the pressure of the magistrates themselves: the judge is called upon to descend from its pedestal to go to the meeting of the citizen and to recognize that he has obligations to the community. But it is above all the responsibility of Parliament and Government, invited to more ambitious public policies, both in terms of means at the service of innovation judicial systems in the modalities and procedures governing the administration of the courts.
The European Commission for the efficiency of justice
It is aware of the duty of the Council of Europe to support its Member States in the development of public policies of justice, at the service of European citizens, that the Committee of Ministers created the European Commission for the efficiency of justice (CEPEJ) 9. Three goals led to the creation of commission: i) propose to the Member States of the Council of Europe of the pragmatic solutions in judicial organization, taking full account of the users of the justice; ((ii) facilitate the effective implementation of the instruments of the Council of Europe relating to the functioning of justice - the CEPEJ can be seen as an "after-sales service" to European standards of justice iii) contribute to decongest the European Court of the human rights by applying the principle that it is better to prevent than cure and offering makers of effective solutions to improve the functioning of national judicial systems upstreamlimit violations of the right to a fair trial within a time reasonable and, therefore, appeals to the Court of Strasbourg.
Innovative instance composed of experts (judges, officials of the Ministry of justice or academics) representatives 47 Member States of the Council of the Europe10, the CEPEJ is now turned to practical concerns of the daily operation of the public service of justice.
Evaluate the functioning of the European judicial systems to improve the quality
If the ambition to improve the quality of justice, should, in advance, to know in depth the functioning of the system, to then be able to conduct analysis and finally to propose solutions to the legal, administrative and organizational plans. This is precisely the route of the CEPEJ in its evaluation process of the judicial systems of the Member States of the Council of Europe.
If the slowness of justice issues, difficulties in access to justice or, more generally, the "crisis of the judicial system" are regularly discussed in multiple European fora, it should be noted that, until then, analyses were rarely supported by concrete numerical elements, lack of sufficiently precise and comparable from one country to the other statistics.
The CEPEJ has been betting to a grid of reading of a judicial system applicable to all the European States. This questionnaire today has more than 130 issues in the financial means and personnel of the justice, the Organization of the courts, judicial procedures, the Organization of justice professions and relations with the users. The CEPEJ has today managed to stabilize this repository, which allows both comparisons between countries and the measures of changes over time, in the same country or group of countries. Any initiative of this type and of this magnitude had ever carried out in the field of justice. It is a single process in Europe, both by the methodology implementation - today widely recognised by the community legal and scientific - the field of the information collected and analyzed.
The third evaluation round, which should lead to the publication of the 2010 edition of the "European judicial systems" 11 report gives a clear photograph of the functioning of the judicial systems of 45 European States and, for the first time, an analysis on first statistical series to move gradually "of photography in film", for the dear expression to the Chairman of the Working Group of the CEPEJ on assessment of justiceJean-Paul JEAN. There are comparative tables and relevant comments in critical areas to understand the functioning of justice. The report highlights the common evaluation indicators of the ability of the courts to handle the flow of business, such as the rate of change of the stock of cases pending (clearance rate) and the estimated duration of the inventory of pending cases (available time) flow. Highlighting the process and the means put at the disposal of the various actors, it allows to capture trends, identify problems and guide the public policies of justice to more quality, equity and efficiency for the benefit of citizens. The CEPEJ has thus a real key to reading of the functioning of justice in Europe, in a dynamic perspective.
Promote and measure the quality of justice: how far can we go?
In evaluating the functioning of judicial systems and developing measures and tools to improve the efficiency of the justice, the CEPEJ has no claim to fully grasp the complex issue of the quality of justice. However, if justice is a public service, parties (who are not only holders of sovereignty but also of taxpayers) can legitimately be in expectation of quality. The quality of justice is guarantee of legitimacy of Justice and citizen's confidence in its justice system.
It is true that introduce the concept of quality as a requirement of the public policies of justice can lead, as was souligne12, an approach "which evokes immediately to mind the world of business, production and management (...)" and brings to wonder if "obsession with quality, after be passed of the company to public administrations", through new public management [would not] winning the (quality) circle of justice? "." The concept of quality of justice is increasingly discussed in the different fora European. We saw see the "sign of change, a change in the way we approach the justice and the judicial institution which makes it to the daily" 13. Are given willingly, and reason, the need to call the authorities to focus their policies on the quality of the services offered to the citizens. Issues that could appear displaced there is less than a decade are today worn in public. Thus, for example, the European Union of clerks of justice and Rechtspfleger (EBU) invited the CEPEJ to reflect on the relevance of introducing standards of ISO for the courts.
Yet, as has been pointed out, the discussions not ventured only rarely on the ground of the definition of the quality of justice: "It is easy enough to talk about the qualities and defects of justice." Citizens and professionals have on the subject of ideas from their personal experiences or based on the reactions that give rise to legal problems. Delay, cost, distance, complexity are the defects of justice always recalled. Independence and jurisdiction are sometimes recognized him. But a definition of the concept of quality of justice is much more difficult "14."
This is no doubt to the fact that the notion of "quality of justice" is the complex synthesis of many factors under different plans and cannot all be seized by the same tools. Act on application quality thus apprehend a global concept and define indicators, without encroaching on the fundamental principle of the independence of the judge. It is for example that underlines the CCJE in its opinion No. 615 indicating that "the assessment of the"quality"of justice (i.e., the work provided by the judicial system as a whole or each local courts or tribunal) should not be confused with the appreciation of the professional capabilities of such or such judge".
Can be, for example, measure the quality of a system without measuring the quality of what he produced, i.e. of judgments made by an independent judge? The CCJE brings a nuanced in its opinion No. 11 (2008) answer on the quality of the decisions of justice (question on which Alain Lacabarats, Member of the CCJE, will return next Thursday).
It is not the mission of the CEPEJ to develop a theory of the quality of justice or the set. On the other hand, it aims to promote quality in judicial systems and provide policy-makers and practitioners of justice in concrete tools to improve the quality of their own system, taking into account their specificities. The CEPEJ has therefore chosen to highlight the diversity of the constituents which are the quality of justice, so practice, considering different audiences of justice - parties, witnesses, victims, citizens or professionals in the justice does not necessarily with the same expectations in terms of quality. This approach allows to search for (or develop) and use assessment tools adapted to each of these quality homes.
Studies and practical tools in the service of Government decision makers and professionals to promote the quality of justice justice
The Working Group of the CEPEJ on the quality of justice (CEPEJ-GT-QUAL), chaired by François Paychère (Swiss magistrate) has developed several tools in the quality of justice:
§ A Checklist for the promotion of the quality of judicial systems and the courts, adopted by the CEPEJ in 2008: this grid is designed as a "tool of introspection" to public decision-makers, the presidents and managers of the courts, judges and other practitioners of justice to face their responsibilities at their own level, to improve the quality of the services offered by the justice system. The main objective of this tool is to help the judicial systems to gather appropriate information and analyze relevant aspects of quality. This document is distinguished from other general models of quality (such as the "European Foundation on Quality Management model") or other models developed at the national level (such as the "model Quality" of the Court of appeal of Rovaniemi in Finland or the "model RechtspraaQ" to the Netherlands) because he is considering the quality of the judicial organization at three levels: the national level, the level of jurisdiction and the level of the individual judge. For each of these three levels, a list of questions can be formulated. These questions are not exhaustive and could be supplemented in the future.
§ A study on systems in Europe, conducted Philip Langbroek (Netherlands): it presents a comparative analysis of mode of quality management in the courts in the following countries: England and Wales, Finland, France, Lower Saxony (Germany), Netherlands, Slovenia, Sweden and Ukraine.
§ A study on the contractualisation of the judicial process, prepared by Julien Lhuiller (France): this study starts with a simple observation: until recently, judicial activity was traditionally an activity of authority. Today, the vertical model, based on the imposition of rules, added little by little new. A horizontal model, based on the agreement of wills, invaded little by little compartments of judicial activity. In many European States, the procedure and practice demonstrate the existence of procedural elements now based on a principle of interactions, exchanges between different actors. The "Contracting" refers to the emergence of new reports of judicial activity, based on the search for a balance. The study (outstanding) seeks to analyze:
-If the effectiveness of Justice is forecast = if its management actors develop dialogue to find equilibrium, consensus in the interests of a proper administration of Justice;
-If the quality of Justice is is it forecast = if the role of the judge (say the right) today enjoys procedural instruments to also hear, and to take into account the word of the user, to inform its own decision and make better accepted in rendering Justice.
§ A manual on surveys of satisfaction, prepared by JP Jean and h. Jorry (France): a methodological guide for the central judicial authorities and the individual courts to develop surveys of user satisfaction, this tool based on the experiences of some Member States and good practices that can be drawn. Satisfaction surveys are a fundamental element of the policy to introduce a culture of quality. From the expression expectations, taking account of the satisfaction of citizens reflects a vision of justice centred more on the user of a service, rather than on the internal performance of the judicial institution. In this work, the CEPEJ is interested first in regular barometers, from reliable indicators, that can effectively measure the level of confidence of the citizens in their justice, to explain the variations and understand the priorities given by the citizens on reforms to improve the effectiveness and quality of judicial responses. To do this, is based not on surveys of surveys of representative samples of citizens (whose results are only representations of justice), but, more difficult to implement, to drive people who had actually matter to justice, and whose results reflect the assessment of a return of concrete experiences.
Different categories of users can be distinguished:
-citizens who have to deal justice, in various capacities. In criminal matters, as author or victim, witness, juror. In civil matters, as plaintiff or defendant. The perception of the performance of justice in terms of home, time or cost still is important, as well as that of the intervention of each of the players in the first rank of which judges, lawyers and the courts staff. All bias must be examined, so the fact that people have won or lost their trial in civil matters. Specific categories of users can be studied in the first rank of which crime victims.
-justice, distinguishing between professionals: those who belong to the public service of justice, like judges, prosecutors, lay and non-procureurs of the courts and prosecution services personnel, and those who are partners critical of the Court to the first rank of which counsel.
With this manual, the la CEPEJ CEPEJ wants propose here a "product database", labelled, low cost, easy to implement, focused on the issues and questions of the functioning of courts. The purpose of a such tool is intended to be widely disseminated to the courts of the Member States and used at low cost by them. The proposed choice is therefore a model type of inquiry from the users actual of the courts, several entries, with a methodological guide taking the best of experiences already engaged in several Member States and substantive issues in the work of CEPEJ. These proposals aim to build an operational tool in a comprehensive approach to improving the quality of justice. The tool presents itself as a modular kit with a customizable standard by users according to their needs, their means and their priorities.
Activities
Human rights
Law
Democracy
Society
Media, Communication
Health
Culture, cultural heritage, nature
Education, languages, sports, youth
Who we are
Human Rights Convention
Council of Europe Treaties
Press Multimedia
Newsroom
Web TV
Photo galleries
Podcasts
Campaigns
Useful links
Employment
Call for tenders
Archives
Archived web pages
Sitemap
Amicale
Administrative Tribunal
Contact us
Secretary General and Deputy Secretary General
Media
Contacts
External Offices
Visit us
Newsletters
Patronage Form
Open
Disclaimer-© Council of Europe 2012-© photo credit - Webmaster
Menu login Bookmarks Print RSS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The CCJE is the only instance composed exclusively of judges in an international organization. He is responsible for advising the Committee of Ministers on status and role of judges.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 See in particular the opinion No. 1 (2001) of CCJE to the attention of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the standards relating to the independence and security of tenure of judges - www.coe.int/ccje.
3 See above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 Recommendations Rec (84) 5 on the principles of civil procedure to improve the functioning of justice. Rec (87) 18 concerning the simplification of criminal justice; Rec (95) 5 on the establishment of systems and procedures for redress in civil and commercial matters and on the improvement of their functioning; Rec (2003) 16 on the execution of administrative and judicial decisions in the field of administrative law; Rec (2003) 17 enforcement of court decisions - www.coe.int/cepej.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Res resolutions (76) 5 concerning judicial assistance in civil, commercial and administrative matters; RES (78) 8 on judicial assistance and legal advice. Recommendations Rec (81) 7 on facilitating access to justice; Rec (93) 1 relating to effective access to the law and to justice of persons in situations of extreme poverty; Rec (98) 1 on family mediation; Rec (99) 19 on mediation in criminal matters; Rec (2001) 9 on alternative methods of dispute resolution between administrative authorities and private persons; Rec (2002) 10 on mediation in civil matters - www.coe.int/cepej.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 Recommendations Rec (86) 12 on certain measures to prevent and reduce the overload work of courts; Rec (95) 12 on criminal justice management; Rec (2001) 2 concerning the design and cost-effective redesign of judicial systems and legal information systems; Rec (2001) 3 on the services of the courts and other legal institutions provided to citizens by new technologies; Rec (2003) 15 on archiving of electronic documents in the legal sector; Recommendation Rec (2003) 14 on the interoperability of the information systems in the justice sector - www.coe.int/cepej.
7 Recommendations Rec (94) 12 concerning the independence, efficiency and role of judges; Recommendation Rec (2000) 19 on the role of the Crown in the criminal justice system; Rec (2000) 21 on the freedom of exercise of the profession of lawyer-www.coe.int/cepej.
8 Opinion of CCJE to the attention of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe N ° 2 (2001) on the funding and management of the courts, no. 3 (2002) on the ethics and the responsibility of judges, no. 6 (2004) on the fair trial within a reasonable time, no. 7 (2005) on "justice and society" - www.coe.int/ccje
9 Resolution Res (2002) 12 of the Committee of Ministers establishing the European Commission for the efficiency of justice (CEPEJ). See www.coe.int/CEPEJ.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. The CEPEJ is currently chaired by Fausto de Santis, Director general in the Ministry of Italian Justice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 Series "The studies of the CEPEJ" - Edition of the Council of Europe, to be published in October 2010 - www.coe.int/cepej.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 Benoît Frydman, Director of Centre Perelman's philosophy of law (free University of Brussels) and a member of the Superior Council of the Belgian justice, speaking in the Symposium on "The quality of the decisions of justice" held on 8 and 9 March 2007 by the Institute of public law of the Faculty of law and social sciences of Poitiers - acts to appear in the series "CEPEJ studies"Council of Europe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13 See previous note.
14 André Potocki (Counsellor at the Court of Cassation, former Vice-president of the CEPEJ and member of the CEPEJ-GT-QUAL) in working group of the CEPEJ on the quality of justice - Document CEPEJ-GT-QUAL (2007) 2 - www.coe.int/cepej.
15 Notice N ° 6 (2004) of CCJE on fair trial within a reasonable time and the role of the judges in the trial, taking into account the alternative methods of dispute resolution.

EUROMED JUSTICE II : "Qualité de la justice"

EUROMED JUSTICE II : "Qualité de la justice"
Luxembourg, 15 – 17 juin 2010
Evaluer la qualité de la justice:
les travaux de la Commission européenne pour l'efficacité de la justice CEPEJ) du Conseil de l'Europe
Le Conseil de l'Europe est depuis 1949 la maison commune européenne fondée sur les droits de l'homme, la prééminence du droit et la démocratie pluraliste. Ces valeurs fondatrices du vivre ensemble européen sont aujourd'hui étendues à quarante sept Etats, soit la quasi-totalité des pays du continent européen.
Il est donc naturellement du devoir de l'institution de Strasbourg de monter en première ligne lorsqu'il s'agit de défendre et de promouvoir le développement d'une justice indépendante et impartiale. On pourrait néanmoins être tenté de se demander si cette fonction de "gardien du temple" de l'indépendance du pouvoir judiciaire est compatible avec les exigences de qualité et de mesure de la qualité qui lui sont attachées, et qui impliquent le développement de principes et de méthodes d'administration et d'évaluation des systèmes de justice. Peut-on parler de la justice comme d'un service public sans fragiliser l'indépendance et l'autorité du pouvoir judiciaire? Doit-on introduire au sein des systèmes judiciaires des concepts de management et des modes d'organisation et de contrôle importés d'autres sphères qui peuvent sembler a priori éloignées des spécificités de la justice?
Si l'on appréhende l’indépendance non comme un privilège du juge mais un droit des citoyens, on ouvre un champ de réflexion tout à fait actuel en Europe. L'indépendance et l'impartialité du juge n'ont en effet de sens que si elles sont pensées comme un élément de politique publique: la justice au service de la communauté. Administrer et évaluer la qualité du service public de la justice devient ainsi une exigence pour les Etats européens.
En créant la Commission Européenne pour l'Efficacité de la Justice (CEPEJ), le Conseil de l'Europe est résolument entré dans cette logique: promouvoir l'efficacité et la qualité des systèmes judiciaires, au service des citoyens, sans jamais faire la moindre concession au plein respect des principes fondamentaux consacrés par la Convention européenne des droits de l'Homme.
Du principe fondamental de l'indépendance des juges au développement nécessaire des politiques publiques de la justice en Europe
Les Articles 5 et 6 de la Convention européenne des droits de l'Homme sont le socle normatif sur lequel l'Europe a construit et consolide le principe fondamental de l'indépendance du pouvoir judiciaire, pilier de l'Etat de droit. Ce principe est placé sous le contrôle intransigeant de la Cour européenne des droits de l'Homme qui, en plusieurs décennies, a développé une jurisprudence claire et constante en la matière. Par ailleurs, le Comité des Ministres, l'Assemblée Parlementaire et le Commissaire aux Droits de l'Homme du Conseil de l'Europe font de l'indépendance des juges l'une des clés de voûte de leurs politiques pour développer le corpus normatif européen, soutenir les réformes institutionnelles et législatives dans les Etats membres et suivre le respect des engagements pris par ces Etats lors de leur entrée dans la famille des démocraties européennes. En outre, plusieurs programmes de coopération ciblée du Conseil de l'Europe ont pour objectifs, depuis une quinzaine d'années, d'ancrer l'indépendance du système judiciaire, notamment dans les nouvelles démocraties d'Europe centrale et orientale. Par ailleurs, le Conseil Consultatif de Juges Européens (CCJE)1 veille au respect des principes de l'indépendance et de l'impartialité des juges, dont il a détaillé les modalités d'application dans plusieurs Avis2.
Ces principes fondamentaux étant posés et protégés, encore faut-il les confronter aux réalités du fonctionnement du système judiciaire. Ainsi le CCJE affirme dans son Avis N°1(2001)3: "leur indépendance [des juges] n'est pas une prérogative ou un privilège octroyé dans leur propre intérêt, mais elle leur est garantie dans l'intérêt de la prééminence du droit et de ceux qui recherchent et demandent justice". Poser la question de la qualité de la justice conduit donc à s'interroger sur le lien entre justice et société.
La justice est un service public. Un service public certes tout à fait à part, dont l'administration peut être partagée entre différents acteurs appartenant aux trois pouvoirs exécutif, législatif et judiciaire, mais dont la production - les jugements - ne peut relever que du seul juge. Cette spécificité ne l'affranchit toutefois pas de certaines exigences posées par la relation avec le politique et avec le citoyen. En posant la question de l'efficacité de la justice, on s'inscrit dans une démarche de politique publique, où interviennent les décideurs publics (ministères de la justice, parlements), les institutions judiciaires (conseils de la justice, tribunaux) et les justiciables-contribuables, et où sont concernés les moyens (budgets, personnels, équipements), les processus et les relations entre les acteurs. Il faut donc considérer l'interaction entre les magistrats, les professionnels du droit et les justiciables, organisée par des systèmes, des règles, des procédures, et financée par les deniers publics.
Les normes européennes en matière de justice développées au sein du Conseil de l'Europe conduisent à une même évidence: il ne suffit pas d'avoir jugé de manière indépendante pour avoir jugé bien. Ainsi la Convention européenne des droits de l'Homme ne se limite pas, dans son Article 6, à exiger des Etats contractants qu'ils garantissent l'indépendance et l'impartialité du tribunal. Il demande aussi qu'ils organisent le système de manière à ce que chacun puisse voir sa cause entendue "dans un délai raisonnable". Ce dispositif est précisé par la jurisprudence de la Cour de Strasbourg et complété par plusieurs recommandations du Comité des Ministres aux Etats membres qui concernent les procédures4, l'accès au juge5, le fonctionnement des tribunaux6 et le rôle des acteurs du système judiciaire7. De son côté, le Conseil Consultatif de Juges Européens (CCJE) a défini des principes en matière de financement des juridictions, de responsabilité des juges, de célérité des procédures et de relations entre la justice et la société8.
La croissance exponentielle du nombre d'affaires portées devant la Cour européenne des droits de l'Homme, principalement motivées par des dysfonctionnements de la justice, montre la nécessité de poursuivre les réformes des systèmes judiciaires nationaux. Le Conseil de l'Europe est ainsi résolument entré dans cette logique visant à promouvoir la qualité des systèmes judiciaires, au service des citoyens européens.
On assiste ainsi à une évolution importante de la manière dont on appréhende les questions relatives à la justice: ce qui pouvait apparaître comme tabou pour certains est en train d'évoluer, parfois sous la pression des magistrats eux-mêmes: le juge est appelé à descendre de son piédestal pour aller à la rencontre du citoyen et à reconnaître qu'il a des obligations vis-à-vis de la communauté. Mais il en va avant tout de la responsabilité du législateur et des gouvernements, invités à conduire des politiques publiques plus ambitieuses, tant en termes de moyens mis au service des systèmes judiciaires qu'en matière d'innovations dans les modalités et procédures régissant l'administration des tribunaux.
La Commission européenne pour l'efficacité de la justice
C'est conscient du devoir du Conseil de l'Europe de soutenir ses Etats membres dans le développement des politiques publiques de la justice, au service des citoyens européens, que le Comité des Ministres a créé la Commission européenne pour l'efficacité de la justice (CEPEJ)9. Trois objectifs ont présidé à la création de commission: i) proposer aux Etats membres du Conseil de l'Europe des solutions pragmatiques en matière d'organisation judiciaire, en tenant pleinement compte des usagers de la justice; ii) faciliter la mise en œuvre effective des instruments du Conseil de l’Europe relatifs au fonctionnement de la justice – la CEPEJ peut être vue comme un "service après-vente" des normes européennes en matière de justice et iii) contribuer à désengorger la Cour européenne des droits de l'Homme en appliquant le principe selon lequel il vaut mieux prévenir que guérir et en offrant aux décideurs publics des solutions effectives pour améliorer en amont le fonctionnement des systèmes judiciaires nationaux, limiter les violations du droit à un procès équitable dans un délai raisonnable et, partant, les recours devant la Cour de Strasbourg.
Instance innovante, composée d'experts (magistrats, fonctionnaires du ministère de la justice ou universitaires) représentants les quarante-sept Etats membres du Conseil de l'Europe10, la CEPEJ est aujourd'hui tournée vers des préoccupations concrètes du fonctionnement quotidien du service public de la justice.
Evaluer le fonctionnement des systèmes judiciaires européens pour en améliorer la qualité
Si l'on a l'ambition d'améliorer la qualité de la justice, il convient, au préalable, de connaître en profondeur le fonctionnement du système, pour être ensuite capable de conduire une analyse et enfin proposer des solutions aux plans normatif, administratif et organisationnel. C'est précisément le parcours de la CEPEJ dans son processus d'évaluation des systèmes judiciaires des Etats membres du Conseil de l'Europe.
Si les questions de lenteur de la justice, de difficultés d'accès au juge ou, plus généralement, la "crise du système judiciaire" sont régulièrement discutées dans de multiples enceintes européennes, il faut constater que, jusqu'alors, les analyses étaient rarement étayées par des éléments chiffrés concrets, faute de statistiques suffisamment précises et comparables d'un pays à l'autre.
La CEPEJ a fait de pari de mettre au point une grille de lecture d'un système judiciaire applicable à l'ensemble des Etats européens. Ce questionnaire compte aujourd'hui plus de 130 questions relatives aux moyens financiers et en personnels de la justice, à l'organisation des tribunaux, aux procédures judiciaires, à l'organisation des professions de la justice et aux relations avec les usagers. La CEPEJ est aujourd'hui parvenue à stabiliser ce référentiel, ce qui permet à la fois des comparaisons entre pays et des mesures des évolutions dans le temps, au sein d'un même pays ou groupe de pays. Aucune initiative de ce type et de cette ampleur n’avait jamais été menée dans le domaine de la justice. Il s'agit d'un processus unique en Europe, tant par la méthodologie mise en œuvre – aujourd'hui largement reconnue par la communauté juridique et scientifique - que par le champ des informations collectées et analysées.
Le troisième cycle d'évaluation, qui doit aboutir à la publication de l'édition 2010 du Rapport "Systèmes judiciaires européens"11, donne une photographie précise du fonctionnement des systèmes judiciaires de quarante-cinq Etats européens ainsi que, pour la première fois, une analyse sur des premières séries statistiques permettant de passer progressivement "de la photographie au film", pour reprendre l'expression chère au président du groupe de travail de la CEPEJ sur l'évaluation de la justice, Jean-Paul JEAN. On y trouve des tableaux comparatifs et des commentaires pertinents dans des domaines essentiels pour comprendre le fonctionnement de la justice. Le rapport fait ressortir des indicateurs communs d'évaluation de la capacité des tribunaux à gérer les flux d'affaires, tels que le taux de variation du stock d'affaires pendantes (clearance rate) et la durée estimée d'écoulement du stocks d'affaires pendantes (disposition time). En soulignant les moyens et les processus mis à la disposition des différents acteurs, il permet de saisir les grandes tendances, d'identifier les difficultés et orienter les politiques publiques de la justice vers davantage de qualité, d’équité et d’efficacité, au bénéfice des citoyens. La CEPEJ dispose ainsi d'une véritable clé de lecture du fonctionnement de la justice en Europe, dans une perspective dynamique.
Promouvoir et mesurer la qualité de la justice: jusqu'où peut-on aller?
En évaluant le fonctionnement des systèmes judiciaires et développant des mesures et outils destinés à améliorer l'efficacité de la justice, la CEPEJ n'a pas la prétention d'avoir pleinement appréhendé la question complexe de la qualité de la justice. Or, si la justice est un service public, les justiciables (qui sont non seulement détenteurs de la souveraineté mais également des contribuables) peuvent légitimement être en attente de qualité. La qualité de la justice est gage de légitimité du juge et de confiance du citoyen dans son système de justice.
Il est vrai qu'introduire la notion de qualité comme une exigence des politiques publiques de la justice peut conduire, comme cela a été souligné12, à une démarche "qui évoque immédiatement à l’esprit le monde de l’entreprise, de la production et du management (…)" et qui amène à se demander si "l’obsession de la qualité, après être passée de l’entreprise aux administrations publiques, par le biais du nouveau management public [ne serait pas] en train de gagner le cercle (de qualité) de la justice?". Le concept de qualité de la justice est de plus en plus discuté dans les différents fora européens. On a vu y voir le "signe d’une évolution, d’un changement dans la manière dont nous appréhendons la justice et l’institution judiciaire qui la rend au quotidien"13. On s'accorde volontiers, et à raison, sur la nécessité d'appeler les pouvoirs publics à centrer leurs politiques sur la qualité des services offerts aux citoyens. Des questions qui pouvaient paraître déplacées il y a moins d'une dizaine d'années sont aujourd'hui portées sur la place publique. Ainsi, par exemple, l'Union Européenne des Greffiers de justice et Rechtspfleger (UER) a-t-elle invité la CEPEJ à réfléchir à la pertinence d'introduire des normes de type ISO pour les tribunaux.
Pourtant, comme cela a été souligné, les discussions ne s'aventurent que rarement sur le terrain de la définition de la qualité de la justice: "Il est assez facile de parler des qualités et des défauts de la justice. Les citoyens et les professionnels ont sur ce sujet des idées puisées dans leurs expériences personnelles ou fondées sur les réactions que suscitent les dysfonctionnements judiciaires. Lenteur, coût, distance, complexité sont les défauts de la justice toujours rappelés. Indépendance et compétence lui sont parfois reconnues. Mais donner une définition du concept de qualité de la justice est beaucoup plus difficile"14.
Cela tient sans doute au fait que la notion de "qualité de la justice" est la synthèse complexe de facteurs nombreux, relevant de plans différents et qui ne peuvent tous être saisis par les mêmes outils. Agir sur la qualité demande donc d'appréhender un concept global et définir des indicateurs, sans empiéter sur le principe fondamental de l'indépendance du juge. C'est par exemple ce que souligne le CCJE dans son Avis N° 615 en indiquant que "l’évaluation de la « qualité » de la justice (c’est-à-dire le travail fourni par le système judiciaire dans son ensemble ou par chaque tribunal ou groupe local de tribunaux) ne devrait pas être confondue avec l’appréciation des capacités professionnelles de tel ou tel juge".
Peut-on, par exemple, mesurer la qualité d'un système sans mesurer la qualité de ce qu'il produit, c'est-à-dire des décisions de justice prise par un juge indépendant? Le CCJE apporte une réponse nuancée dans son Avis N° 11 (2008) sur la qualité des décisions de justice (question sur laquelle Alain Lacabarats, membre du CCJE, reviendra jeudi prochain).
Il n’entre pas dans la mission de la CEPEJ d’élaborer une théorie de la qualité de la justice ou de la définir. En revanche, elle vise à promouvoir la qualité au sein des systèmes judiciaires et de donner aux décideurs publics et aux praticiens de la justice des outils concrets pour améliorer la qualité de leur propre système, en tenant compte de leurs spécificités. La CEPEJ a donc choisi de mettre en avant la diversité des constituants qui font la qualité de la justice, de manière pratique, en considérant les différents auditoires de la justice - les parties, les témoins, les victimes, les citoyens ou les professionnels de la justice n'ayant pas forcément les mêmes attentes en terme de qualité. Cette approche permet de rechercher (ou d’élaborer) et d’utiliser des outils d’évaluation adaptés à chacun de ces foyers de qualité.
Des études et des outils concrets au service des décideurs publics et des professionnels de la justice pour promouvoir la qualité de la justice
Le Groupe de travail de la CEPEJ sur la qualité de la justice (CEPEJ-GT-QUAL), présidé par François Paychère (Magistrat suisse) a élaboré plusieurs outils en matière de qualité de la justice:
    § Une Checklist pour la promotion de la qualité des systèmes judiciaires et des tribunaux, adoptée par la CEPEJ en 2008: cette Grille est conçue comme un « outil d'introspection » permettant aux décideurs publics, aux présidents et gestionnaires des tribunaux, aux juges et aux autres praticiens de la justice de faire face à leurs responsabilités, à leur propre niveau, pour améliorer la qualité des services offerts par le système de justice. L’objectif principal de cet outil consiste à aider les systèmes judiciaires à rassembler des informations appropriées et à analyser les aspects pertinents relatifs à la qualité. Ce document se distingue d’autres modèles généraux de qualité (tels que le « European Foundation on Quality Management model ») ou d’autres modèles développés au niveau national (tels que le « Quality model » de la Cour d'Appel de Rovamiemi en Finlande ou le « RechtspraaQ model » aux Pays-Bas) parce qu'il envisage la qualité de l’organisation judiciaire à trois niveaux : le niveau national, le niveau de la juridiction et le niveau du juge individuel. Pour chacun de ces trois niveaux, une liste de questions peut être formulée. Ces questions ne sont pas exhaustives et pourront être complétées à l'avenir.
    § Une Etude sur les systèmes qualité en Europe, réalisée Philip Langbroek (Pays-Bas): elle présente une analyse comparative de mode de gestion de la qualité dans les tribunaux des pays suivants: Angleterre et Pays de Galles, Finlande, France, Basse Saxe (Allemagne), Pays-Bas, Slovénie, Suède et Ukraine.
    § Une Etude sur la contractualisation des processus judiciaires, préparée par Julien Lhuiller (France): cette étude part d’un constat simple : jusqu’à une date récente, l’activité judiciaire était traditionnellement une activité d’autorité. Aujourd’hui, le modèle vertical, fondé sur l’imposition de règles, s’enrichit peu à peu d’éléments nouveaux. Un modèle horizontal, reposant sur l’accord des volontés, envahit peu à peu les différents compartiments de l’activité judiciaire. Dans de nombreux Etats européens, la procédure et la pratique témoignent de l’existence d’éléments procéduraux reposant désormais sur un principe d’interactions, d’échanges entre différents acteurs. La « contractualisation » évoque l’émergence des nouveaux rapports de l’activité judiciaire, fondés sur la recherche d’un équilibre. L'étude (encours) cherche à analyser:
    - si l’efficacité de la Justice s’est contractualisée = si les acteurs de sa gestion développent le dialogue pour trouver des équilibres, des consensus dans l’intérêt d’une bonne administration de la Justice;
    - si la qualité de la Justice s’est-elle contractualisée = si le rôle du juge (dire le droit) bénéficie aujourd’hui d’instruments procéduraux lui permettant aussi d’entendre, et de prendre en compte la parole de l’usager, pour éclairer sa propre décision et la faire mieux acceptée de tous au moment de rendre la Justice.
    § Une Manuel sur les enquêtes de satisfaction, préparé par JP Jean et H. Jorry (France): un guide méthodologique destiné aux administrations judiciaires centrales et aux tribunaux individuels souhaitant développer des enquêtes de satisfaction des usagers, cet outil s'appuyant notamment sur les expériences de certains Etats membres et les bonnes pratiques pouvant être dégagées. Les enquêtes de satisfaction sont un élément fondamental des politiques visant à introduire une culture de la qualité. Partant de l’expression des attentes, la prise en compte de la satisfaction des citoyens traduit une vision de la justice davantage centrée sur l’usager d’un service, plutôt que sur les performances internes de l’institution judiciaire. Dans ce travail, la CEPEJ s' intéresse d’abord aux baromètres réguliers, à partir d’indicateurs fiables, qui permettent effectivement de mesurer le niveau de confiance des citoyens dans leur justice, d’expliquer les variations et de comprendre les priorités données par les citoyens en matière de réformes tendant à améliorer l’efficacité et la qualité des réponses judiciaires. Pour ce faire, ne s'appuie pas sur les enquêtes constituées de sondages auprès d’échantillons représentatifs de citoyens (dont les résultats n’intéressent que les représentations de la justice), mais sur celles, plus difficiles à mettre en œuvre, à conduire auprès de personnes ayant eu effectivement affaire à la justice, et dont les résultats traduisent l’évaluation d’un retour d’expériences concrètes.
    Différentes catégories d’usagers peuvent être distinguées:
    - les citoyens qui ont eu affaire à la justice, à divers titres. En matière pénale, en qualité de victime ou d’auteur, de témoin, de juré. En matière civile, en tant que demandeur ou défendeur. La perception de la performance de la justice en termes d’accueil, de délai ou encore de coût est importante, de même que celle de l’intervention de chacun des acteurs, au premier rang desquels les juges, les avocats et les personnels des juridictions. Tous les biais doivent être examinés, ainsi le fait que les personnes aient gagné ou perdu leur procès en matière civile. Des catégories particulières d’usagers peuvent être étudiées, au premier rang desquelles les victimes d’infractions.
    - les professionnels de la justice, en distinguant : ceux qui appartiennent au service public de la justice, à l’instar des juges, des procureurs, des personnels non-juges et non-procureurs des tribunaux et ministères publics, et ceux qui sont les partenaires indispensables de la juridiction, au premier rang desquels les avocats.
    Avec ce manuel, la CEPEJ souhaite proposer ici un "produit de base", labellisé, peu coûteux, aisé à mettre en œuvre, concentré sur les problématiques et questions essentielles du fonctionnement des tribunaux. La finalité d’un tel outil est d’avoir vocation à être largement diffusé auprès des juridictions des Etats membres et utilisé à faible coût par elles. Le choix proposé est donc celui d’un modèle-type d’enquête auprès des usagers effectifs des juridictions, à plusieurs entrées, accompagné d’un guide méthodologique tirant le meilleur des expériences déjà engagées dans plusieurs Etats-membres et des questions de fond traitées dans le cadre des travaux de la CEPEJ. Ces propositions visent à construire un outil opérationnel s’inscrivant dans une démarche globale d’amélioration de la qualité de la justice. L’outil se présente comme un kit modulable avec un modèle standard adaptable par les utilisateurs selon leurs besoins, leurs moyens et leurs priorités.




1 Le CCJE est la seule instance composée exclusivement de juges au sein d'une organisation internationale. Il est chargé de conseiller le Comité des Ministres en matière de statut et de rôle des juges.

2 Voir en particulier l'Avis No 1(2001) du CCJE à l'attention du Comité des Ministres du Conseil de l'Europe sur les normes relatives à l'indépendance et l'inamovibilité des juges – www.coe.int/ccje.
3 Voir ci-dessus.

4 Recommandations Rec(84)5 sur les principes de procédure civile propres à améliorer le fonctionnement de la justice; Rec(87)18 concernant la simplification de la justice pénale; Rec(95)5 sur l'instauration de systèmes et procédures de recours en matière civile et commerciale et sur l'amélioration de leur fonctionnement; Rec(2003)16 sur l’exécution des décisions administratives et juridictionnelles dans le domaine du droit administratif; Rec(2003)17 en matière d’exécution des décisions de justice - www.coe.int/cepej.

5 Résolutions Res(76)5 concernant l'assistance judiciaire en matière civile, commerciale et administrative; Res(78)8 sur l’assistance judiciaire et la consultation juridique; Recommandations Rec(81)7 sur les moyens de faciliter l’accès à la justice; Rec(93)1 relative à l'accès effectif au droit et à la justice des personnes en situation de grande pauvreté; Rec(98)1 sur la médiation familiale; Rec(99)19 sur la médiation en matière pénale; Rec(2001)9 sur les modes alternatifs de règlement des litiges entre les autorités administratives et les personnes privées; Rec(2002)10 sur la médiation en matière civile - www.coe.int/cepej.

6 Recommandations Rec(86)12 relative à certaines mesures visant à prévenir et réduire la surcharge de travail des tribunaux; Rec(95)12 sur la gestion de la justice pénale; Rec(2001)2 concernant la conception et la reconception rentables des systèmes judiciaires et des systèmes d’information juridique; Rec(2001)3 sur les services des tribunaux et d’autres institutions juridiques fournis aux citoyens par de nouvelles technologies; Rec(2003)15 sur l’archivage des documents électroniques dans le secteur juridique; Recommandation Rec(2003)14 sur l’interopérabilité des systèmes d’information dans le secteur de la justice - www.coe.int/cepej.
7 Recommandations Rec(94)12 relative à l'indépendance, l'efficacité et le rôle des juges; Recommandation Rec(2000)19 sur le rôle du ministère public dans le système de justice pénale; Rec(2000)21 sur la liberté d'exercice de la profession d'avocat- www.coe.int/cepej.
8 Avis du CCJE à l'attention du Comité des Ministres du Conseil de l'Europe N°2(2001) sur le financement et la gestion des tribunaux, N° 3(2002) sur l'éthique et la responsabilité des juges, N° 6(2004) sur le procès équitable dans un délai raisonnable, N° 7(2005) sur "justice et société" – www.coe.int/ccje
9 Résolution Res(2002)12 du Comité des Ministres établissant la Commission européenne pour l’efficacité de la justice (CEPEJ). Voir www.coe.int/CEPEJ.

10 La CEPEJ est actuellement présidée par Fausto de Santis, Directeur général au sein du Ministère de la Justice italien.

11 Série "Les Etudes de la CEPEJ" – Edition du Conseil de l'Europe, à paraître en octobre 2010 - www.coe.int/cepej.

12 Benoît Frydman, Directeur du Centre Perelman de Philosophie du Droit (Université Libre de Bruxelles) et membre du Conseil supérieur de la justice belge, s'exprimait dans le cadre du Colloque sur "La qualité des décisions de justice" organisé les 8 et 9 mars 2007 par l’Institut de droit public de la Faculté de droit et de sciences sociales de Poitiers – actes à paraître dans la série "Les Etudes de la CEPEJ", Conseil de l'Europe.

13 Voir note précédente.
14 André Potocki (Conseiller à la Cour de Cassation, ancien Vice-Président de la CEPEJ et membre du CEPEJ-GT-QUAL) in Groupe de travail de la CEPEJ sur la qualité de la justice – Document CEPEJ-GT-QUAL(2007)2 – www.coe.int/cepej.

15 Avis N°6 (2004) du CCJE sur le procès équitable dans un délai raisonnable et le rôle des juges dans le procès, en prenant en considération les modes alternatifs de règlement des litiges.

info Benjamin et de son fils Aureo (sefca puteaux solidaire du papa)

Cédric Fleurigeon http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=264268448591 Nous demandons à tous pendant une journée, le samedi 30 janvier 2010 de changer la photo de votre profil par celle de Benjamin et de son fils Aureo Il serait bon de voir fleurir cette photo sur la toile que se soit sur Facebook, MySpace, MSN ainsi que sur tous les méd