•October 22, 2002•Technology for Justice 2002 •1

•Information policy to Improve the Dutch Courts

•October 22, 2002•Technology for Justice 2002 •1

• Dory Reiling mag. Iur.• The Hague Court of Appeal• Council for the Judiciary IT

Management

•October 22, 2002•Technology for Justice 2002 •1

• Introducing Netherlands courts• Technology:• What does it do for us? • What can it do for us?• What should it do for us?

Themes

•October 22, 2002•Technology for Justice 2002 •1

• before 1999 • 1999 - 2002• 2002 -

Periods

•October 22, 2002•Technology for Justice 2002 •1

The Netherlands

Statistics• European Union Member• 16 mln Inhabitants• Approx. 1.800 Judges (1:9.000)• Approx. 450 Prosecutors (1:35.000)• Total 10.000 (7.000 + 3.000)

Employees

•October 22, 2002•Technology for Justice 2002 •1

Court System.nl

Jurisdictions:Civil - well developedCriminal - ECHR-orientedAdministrative - part of ordinary courts

•October 22, 2002•Technology for Justice 2002 •1

Alkmaar

Groningen

Leeuwarden

Assen

Amsterdam

Haarlem

Utrecht

‘s-Gravenhage

Rotterdam

Dordrecht

Midelburg

Maastricht

Roermond

‘s-Hertogenbosch

Breda

Zwolle

Almelo

Arnhem

Zutphen

•19 Districts

•5 Appeal Courts

•1 Supreme Court

•Justice.NLOrganization.nl

•October 22, 2002•Technology for Justice 2002 •1

Courts Governance before 2002

Judges

Minister of JusticePresidents’ Assembly

Dualist Structure

Court Staff

Court Director Court President

•October 22, 2002•Technology for Justice 2002 •1

What does it do?

Court Technology• 1986 administrative systems• Word processing on stand-alone• Jurisprudence by private publishers• Steering and management information• Windows, GUI and e-mail!

•October 22, 2002•Technology for Justice 2002 •1

•October 22, 2002•Technology for Justice 2002 •1

What can it do?

Information Policy Scenario

• Targets for Improvement• IT to support targets

•October 22, 2002•Technology for Justice 2002 •1

What can it do?

Court ImprovementProgram

•October 22, 2002•Technology for Justice 2002 •1

What can it do?

Characteristics• co-operation• support• from bureaucracy to

knowledge-based organization

•October 22, 2002•Technology for Justice 2002 •1

What can it do?

Improving • case handling• court management• governance• external orientation

•October 22, 2002•Technology for Justice 2002 •1

•October 22, 2002•Technology for Justice 2002 •1

Web applicationsIntranetsearch portalwww.rechtspraak.nlaccess to registers and case administration

•October 22, 2002•Technology for Justice 2002 •1

IT-Testing Lab

DemonstratingCockpit management infoWork flow managementDecision Support SystemSession Planning

TestingExpertise

•October 22, 2002•Technology for Justice 2002 •1

Courts Governance before 2002

Judges

Minister of JusticePresidents’ Assembly

Dualist Structure

Court Staff

Court Director Court President

•October 22, 2002•Technology for Justice 2002 •1

Judges and Court Staff

Court Board

President, Sector Presidents, Court Director

Minister of Justice(Presidents’ Assembly)

Council for the Judiciary

Integral Management

Judiciary Governance since 2002

•October 22, 2002•Technology for Justice 2002 •1

Council for the Judiciary

Tasks• Budgeting• Allocating funds to courts• Supporting Court Management• Promoting Quality• Consultation

•October 22, 2002•Technology for Justice 2002 •1

Strategic Agenda

• Improving case handling• Quality assurance • Improving external orientation • …..• using the possibilities of information

technology

•October 22, 2002•Technology for Justice 2002 •1

3 programs:• R+D• Implementation• Maintenance(discontinuing)

•Justice.NLImproving information management

•October 22, 2002•Technology for Justice 2002 •1

JustWord

Intranet

ICT-Proeflokaal

Bistro

ICTRO

Standard texts

Information exchange

Testing new ICT

Web applications/KM

1 centralized IT support organization

What can it do?

•October 22, 2002•Technology for Justice 2002 •1

Interactivity with the citizens

Electronic files

Good management information

Exchange of experiences

Wishes for the Future

•October 22, 2002•Technology for Justice 2002 •1

• Top level commitment

• User participation

• Roles

• Learning from others

Information Policy Making: Lessons Learned

But What Should IT Do?

•October 22, 2002•Technology for Justice 2002 •1

What should IT do?

Supporting fair hearing within a

reasonable time by an independent tribunal!

European Convention on Human Rights, article 6

Wishes for the Future