1. Measuring quantitative indicators Courts performance
CSM
Measuring quantitative indicators Courts performance
LISBON, May 2018

2. CSM
Framework
The rule of law in a democracy requires not only judicial independence but also the establishment of competent courts rendering judicial decisions of the highest possible quality within a reasonable time
Opinion n.º 17 (2014) of Consultative Council of European Judges
This is the framework of judicial (judge and courts) performance system
The rule of law in a democracy requires not only judicial independence but also the establishment of competent courts rendering judicial decisions of the highest possible quality within a reasonable time

3. Framework Portugal has a very ancient experience on judges’ assessment
CSM
Framework
Portugal has a very ancient experience on judges’ assessment
Nevertheless, the judicial reforms of the XXI century challenged us to go deep on reflexion and practice about the system: the new Inspectorate rules of 2017 are an example of this maintaining the traditional principles:
Independence
Legality
Fairness
Timeliness
Equality
Impartiality
Although, Portugal has a very ancient experience in this domain, judicial reforms of the XXI century challenged us to go deep on reflexion and practice about the system of tracking judicial performance: the new rules of 2017 are an example of this.
The main principles, however, remained unchanged: independence, legality, equality, impartiality and fairness. A new aspect was added: the continual assessment of courts’ process tracking as the adequate context to individual evaluation based on the above said principles.
And stressing a new one:
Continuous assessment of the whole courts’ process tracking focused on citizens and on results

4. CSM
Framework
Firmly determined to accomplish is task of ensuring the independence of courts, the High Council stresses is attributions related to the performance of courts and not only of judges
Article 2 of Portuguese Rule
Aiming to contribute to improve the quality of the system of justice, mostly efficiency, effectiveness and streamlining procedures’ practices, administration and management

5. CSM
Framework
Accountability is both a continual and an essential goal, entirely respectful of judges’ independence. For that,
The Inspectorate ought by no means to interfere with the independence of the Judges, concerning the substantive merits of their judgments and decisions

6. CSM
CITIUS
The IT system of Portuguese Courts is in fact an ongoing system built by court clercks to facilitate their work
In 2008 it was adapted to judges’ intervention in civil cases
Since 2017, that system was extended to all cases, although with some restrictions in criminal and children cases
That system enables the citizens, when represented by lawyers, to apply their petitions to court as you can see by the video below:

7. CSM
CITIUS
When a file is lodged with the court it is classified according to its matter and complexity
Afterwards, cases are randomly assigned to each Judge
by means of an eletronic tool
to prevent interference and enhances transparency

8. CSM
CITIUS
This is an example of what is seen in clerks application:

9. CSM
CITIUS
After assignment the files became available to the unit of proceedings, responsible for them:

10. CSM
CITIUS
The clerk presents the proceedings to the judge

11. CITIUS Judges application reports: the number of files
CSM
CITIUS
Judges application reports:
the number of files
the type of decision possibly required
the day of presentation for decision

12. CITIUS After decision the case returns to the clerck
CSM
CITIUS
After decision the case returns to the clerck
The clerks application provides data on timeliness as well

13. CSM
CITIUS
The decision can be sent electronically to lawyers

14. CSM
Justice Statistics
Fazer um texto para isto

15. Justice Statistics Justice Statistics
CSM
Justice Statistics
Justice Statistics

16. CSM
Justice Statistics

17. CSM
Justice Statistics

18. CSM
Council’s monitoring
It is relevant to stress the organizational dimension of performance and therefore to improve the general accountability of courts and of judges within the Courts
The recent changing of our Rules and Proceedings of Assessment, in order to build a more appropriate system that involves court presidents and inspectors, has that major objective
For this purpose, the High Council continually monitories the activity of Courts, receives statistical data each four months and promotes reunions between court presidents, inspectors and judges, to analyse the problems and to draft the solutions
Although the individual evaluation of judges is one of the most important tasks of inspectors, the wide view of the whole system is the context in which evaluation’s occurs.
Evaluation of independent judges does not confound with judicial services, but services are essential for the result of judges’ work. Even if the performance of courts is important, the focus of individual evaluation of judges must be on their specific tasks in the democratic system of rule of law and emphasis must be done in the interest of all citizens.
Accordingly cf. Opinion n.º 17 of CCJE: Judges perform indispensable duties in each democratic society that respects the rule of law. Judges must protect the rights and freedoms of all persons equally. Judges must take steps to provide efficient and affordable dispute resolution and decide cases in a timely manner and independently and must be bound only by the law. They must give cogent reasons for their decisions and must write in a clear and comprehensible manner. Moreover, all binding decisions of judges must also be enforced effectively. Judicial independence does not mean that judges are not accountable for their work. The CCJE has laid emphasis on maintaining and improving the quality and efficiency of judicial systems in the interest of all citizens. Where it exists, the individual evaluation of judges should aim at improving the judiciary while ensuring the highest quality possible. That exercise must be done in the interest of the public as a whole.
In a system in which the Council or Judges do not provide resources but are able to manage them, I think this is a main issue. .

19. CSM
Council’s monitoring
Monitoring courts workload for management purposes implies the collection of court’s workload data
Nowadays the Council uses an application developed by its own IT department
Although data are provided for CITIUS, it is not yet possible to receive them directly
For that a huge work of the court’s presidencies is needeed to introduce data in Council’s application

20. CSM
Council’s monitoring

21. CSM
Council’s monitoring

22. CSM
Council’s monitoring

23. CSM
Council’s monitoring

24. CSM
Council’s monitoring

25. CSM
Council’s monitoring

26. CSM
Council’s monitoring

27. CSM
Council’s monitoring

28. CSM
Council’s monitoring

29. CSM
Council’s monitoring
However, we have already fixed the qualitative criteria allowing the gathering of data with previous consultation of all judges.
The following criteria were established:
The core cases in each jurisdiction
The percentage adequate to the remaining caseload
The different categories of courts

30. Performance standards
CSM
Performance standards
The definition of expected workload is a legal obligation of Judicial High Council
Those standards must take in account the effective workload of Courts during, at least, three years
Therefore, due to the 2014 judicial reform, the Council had now finished to gather the statistics results
The data were collected from CITIUS and collected following the criteria above

31. Performance standards
CSM
Performance standards
Resulting in a proposal that is yet to be adopted by the Council
Categorização
Inspecções
Estudo 2010
2015
2016
2017
IC1
IC1 - Execuções
TOTAIS
IC1A
IC2 65
IC3
224
IC4
IC4 - Execuções
9 - 15
7 -11
5-9
IC5
850
IC6
750
IC7
1450
IC8
700
IC9
6500

32. Thank you so much for your attention
CSM
Thank you so much for your attention