This chapter describes the main strategies and initiatives to drive justice transformation in Portugal. It focuses on promoting simpler, digital, open and innovative approaches and optimising justice service delivery.
Justice Transformation in Portugal
Building on Successes and Challenges
2. Towards a smart justice system in Portugal
Abstract
Whole-of-public-sector approach to justice transformation
Vision for justice transformation in Portugal
In Portugal, recent years have seen the emergence of an ambitious programme to drive the transformation of the justice sector. Recent initiatives include the Justiça + Próxima programme and more specifically the Tribunal + project and the horizontal project, Simplex +.
Important examples prior to these efforts include: the 2008 Law on the Organisation and Functioning of Judicial Courts;1 the measures taken within the context of the 2011 Memorandum of Understanding on financial assistance with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the European Union (EU), such as the new Code of Civil Procedure;2 and the 2013 Law on the Organisation of the Judicial System3 (Box 2.1).
Box 2.1. Civil Procedure Reform in Portugal
Reforms to civil procedure over the last 40 years can be divided into three different phases: i) from 1976 to 1994, with a democratisation period focusing on the adequacy of the civil procedure regime with regards to the new constitution and looked to speed up the procedure; ii) from 1995 to 2006, with a focus on procedural promptness; iii) from 2006 onwards, the procedural management period. During this last period, reforms have focused on procedural flexibility and management, aiming at a faster and more efficient justice.
The new Civil Procedure Code that entered into force in September 2013 through Law no. 41/2013 of 26 June,4 aligns with these objectives. The main changes for the majority of the proceedings were the following: i) limitation of the number of pleadings in a proceeding; ii) simplification of the proceedings; iii) the possibility given to the judge to adapt the proceedings to the case.
As for the enforcement proceedings, the key changes introduced by the new code were to:
Streamline the system of debt recovery, especially by direct electronic seizure of bank accounts of the debtor by the bailiffs (Articles 749 and 780).
Speed up the enforcement of civil court rulings (Article 85).
Terminate proceedings where debts were not recoverable, a measure that significantly reduced the backlog in courts (new Article 849) during the Troika period.5
Allow cases to be closed in court without waiting for all pending payments to be made when only periodic payments are seized and the future incomes are adjudicated to the creditor (Article 779, 4, b). The case can be reopened if the creditor is not fully paid.
Encourage the use of electronic auctions to sell seized assets (Article 837).
These changes are estimated to have allowed the closing and transfer of close to 250 000 cases between 2012 and 2014, out of a total of 1.7 million pending cases in 2012. According to the Portuguese authorities, the figure comes closer to 650 000 during the period 2012-16/17.
Source: Gouveia, M.F., J. Pinto-Ferreira and M. Teixeira (2017), “Evolução do processo civil: Democratização, celeridade e gestão processual”, in M. de L. Rodrigues et al. (eds.), 40 Anos de Políticas de Justiça em Portugal, Almedina, Coimbra, pp. 181-97.
The programmes seek to ensure that justice services are efficient, agile and innovative, but also accessible and humane. They also aim to upgrade the capacity of justice stakeholders, including courts, to interact with and respond to the needs of its constituents.
This and subsequent chapters take stock of the progress made by the Portuguese government on this journey, based on good practices in OECD countries. In particular, this chapter provides an overview of high-level strategies and approaches adopted by the Government of Portugal to modernise the justice sector, in line with the overall vision for an efficient, agile and user-centred public sector.
Strategy for justice transformation in Portugal
Portugal has been employing a sophisticated approach to the overall public sector transformation, including in the justice area (Figure 2.1). It is one of the OECD countries integrating elements of administrative simplification, service improvement and digital strategies, with a view to improving citizen-centricity in the justice sector. By following this approach in the justice area, Portugal is aspiring to transform the way that justice is delivered to people and businesses in order to:
create a better business climate
strengthen trust in justice institutions and improving the perception of justice
strengthen the transparency of justice through improved service
improve responsiveness and efficiency of services and meeting budget constraints
bring justice closer to people.
Figure 2.1. Portugal’s strategies for justice transformation
The main strategic documents regarding the government’s action in the domain of justice include (Figure 2.1):
The Government’s Programme, which sets out the main political guidelines and measures to be developed in the various areas of governmental activity, including the domain of justice. The Programme of the XXI Government makes the commitment to render justice more agile, by assuming a management perspective with a view to modernisation, simplification and rationalisation. This commitment is structured in five different sets of concrete measures. A first set aims at: improving the management of the judicial system and comprises, for instance, the implementation of a productivity incentive scheme for courts; the development of information and communication technology (ICT) tools for court and workload management; the possibility of reallocating cases according to the “natural judge” principle;6 and the introduction of a “Simplex philosophy” for courts. A second set of measures looks to relieve congestion in courts and focuses mainly on the reinforcement of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). A third set of measures intends to simplify and dematerialise judicial procedures and the fourth to bring justice closer to citizens, including the implementation of a new attendance service for citizens and the adoption of plain language in essential procedural acts. Finally, the government commits to measures aiming to improve the quality of the administration of justice, promoting, for instance, the training of judges and court clerks and the improvement of legal aid.7
The Major Planning Options, which translate the government programme into concrete action, define the main strategic guidelines for the country’s economic and social development policy. Every year, the government must submit to the parliament a bill establishing major planning options, together with the budget proposal. For 2019, the options include, among several others: the reinforcement of ADR (in view of developing a platform for managing pending cases in justice of the peace courts and arbitration centres); the continuous upgrade of the information systems that support courts (the administrative and fiscal courts information system SITAF and web portal Citius) with the creation of new functionalities; the development of an online Justice Digital Services Platform; the development of a Justice Hub, composed of three competency centres: i) a Security Operational Centre (for managing, monitoring and ensuring security in information systems); ii) a Digital Transformation Centre (for monitoring and developing internal procedures aiming at digital transformation); iii) a Centre for the Modernisation of Infrastructures. Once approved by the parliament, the government develops specific plans in different sectors, including justice.
The National Reform Programme is also an essential element in defining a medium-term strategy to enable Portugal to launch a set of structural reforms to promote the relaunching of investment and contribute to the sustainability of public finances by 2020. Over time, integrating justice-related elements into such plans can help demonstrate its impacts on the economy, investment and business climate.
In line with good international practices (Box 2.2) and to support the implementation of a high-level vision, the current government has developed several subprogrammes, including those that apply to the justice sector (discussed further below):
The Justiça + Próxima programme aims to develop a swift, transparent and human justice that is closer to and co-designed by citizens (see below).
The Capitalizar programme integrates a set of 64 measures aiming to support the capitalisation of enterprises, the recovery of investment and the relaunch of the economy. The programme is divided into five pillars: i) administrative simplification and systemic framework; ii) taxation; iii) business restructuring; iv) leverage of financing and investment; and v) capital market promotion. Under the third pillar, some measures were adopted that directly involve courts, such as modifications made to the business revitalisation process. The programme specifically focuses on capitalising Portuguese enterprises by reinforcing equity and reducing their levels of indebtedness. This involves revision of the Insolvency Code, the introduction of an out-of-court Regime for Companies’ Recovery, and out-of-court repossession of the collateral (pledge) legal framework, the creation of a Business Recovery Mediator Regime (a new class of professionals to help small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), the strengthening of the legal regime for debt to equity swap (by giving creditors a chance to save companies with or without the equity holders’ agreement), and the setting up of an Early Warning Regime and electronic proceedings for insolvency cases.
The Simplex + programme aims to modernise public administration and was launched by the current government to further the action of the initial Simplex programme introduced in 2006 (see below).
Box 2.2. Selected examples of justice transformation efforts in OECD countries
United Kingdom – The transformation of HMCTS
HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) launched a project in 2016 to reform the justice system and modernise courts. Completion is expected in 2023, with targets including 5 000 fewer staff, 2.4 million fewer cases, and a GBP 265 million reduction in spending. The GBP 1 billion project is expected to modernise 50 distinct programmes in the operations of criminal, family and civil matters including the incorporation of digital services, online filing and claim processing, national infrastructure, and video communications and technology support. A list of the reform programme’s projects can be found on the Government of the United Kingdom website (Government of the United Kingdom, 2018a). The following principles were identified for the direction of the project:
building in partnership
increasing accessibility
being proportionate and segmented
strengthening a strong, independent and trusted justice heritage
increasing transparency and accountability
securing financial sustainability
designing for 2050 – not 2018
putting people at the heart of the system.
In 2017, the first stage of the reform was completed, seeing an increase in income generated by the estate reforms. Several challenges to the project have already been identified, however. This includes delays in developing and implementing a case management system (necessary to create full digital capabilities), a shortfall in expected funding, an extended timeline and a reduced scope of reform. The project also relies on organisations to invest in new technology while having limited control over enforcement in doing so, as well as the introduction and approval of new legislation to legitimise virtual hearings. It has been recommended that the HMCTS work with organisations in the justice system as well as the Ministry of Justice to anticipate and manage adverse consequences of the project’s implementation and to address the challenges above.
New Zealand – Improving people’s experience
New Zealand’s modernisation of the courts project was launched in 2013 and the following goals were defined (New Zealand Ministry of Justice, 2018a):
reduce the time it takes to hear and resolve matters in a court or tribunal
improve the experience of court users
simplify and standardise processes to improve productivity and efficiency
reduce dependency on physical locations.
The project is anticipated to be completed in 2022. It includes electronic self-service, case flow management, event management, remote participation, and business intelligence and performance to deliver a more citizen-centric provision of services and enhance access to justice. In conjunction with these deliverables, the Ministry of Justice seeks to implement two bills – the Court Matters Bill and the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill, to provide the legal framework necessary for the change (New Zealand Ministry of Justice, 2018b):
Sources: Government of the United Kingdom (2018a), The HMCTS Reform Programme, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-hmcts-reform-programme; Morse, A. (2018), “Early progress in transforming courts and tribunals”, https://www.nao.org.uk/press-release/early-progress-in-transforming-courts-and-tribunals/; Government of the United Kingdom (2018b), HMCTS Reform Programme Projects Explained, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/hmcts-reform-programme-projects-explained; Acland-Hood, S. (2018), “Modernising the Courts and Tribunals Service”, https://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/sites/laws/files/ucl_foj_01_03_acland-hood.pdf; Controller and Auditor General (2017), Ministry of Justice: Modernising Court Services, https://www.oag.govt.nz/2017/courts/docs/courts.pdf; New Zealand Ministry of Justice (2018a), Modernising Courts and Tribunals, https://www.justice.govt.nz/about/about-us/our-strategy/modernising-courts-and-tribunals/; New Zealand Ministry of Justice (2018b), Statement of Intent, https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Publications/Ministry-of-Justice-statement-of-intent-2017-to-2022.pdf.
The Justiça + Próxima programme
The Justiça + Próxima programme spans the entire 2015-19 legislature and aims to increase transparency and trust in the justice institutions acting through four fundamental pillars (Ministry of Justice of Portugal, 2016):
enhancing efficiency and strengthening justice sector management through simplification and dematerialisation of procedures and the use of interoperable technologies
innovation, by modernising justice
proximity, pursuing the citizen-centric approach, by offering clear, transparent and accountable information
humanisation, by valuing tangible and intangible resources.
Justiça + Próxima is, thus, composed of multiple initiatives (Box 2.3), some of which were proposed by citizens and justice stakeholders, with the technology used to provide for such targets by promoting a “digital by default” principle for courts and other justice stakeholders. In part, Justiça + Próxima also contributes to the Simplex + programme.8
Box 2.3. Selected measures of the Justiça + Próxima programme
Alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
Electronic information on alternative means of dispute resolution.
Reassessment of the business model of peace courts and reorganisation and streamlining of the network of justices of the peace.
Network boosting consumer conflict arbitration centres.
Collaboration
Justice for All of Us and Justice Forum.
Court +.
System management indicators of courts.
Management information system of courts of first instance.
Courts digital transformation
Citius web portal (e.g. remote access by magistrates, alert service, SISAAE interface [computer support system for enforcement officers activity], faster preparation of the final procedure account, liaison with GNR (National Republican Guard), inventory and review of available forms, access by insolvency administrators).
Access by enforcement officers linked to enforcement proceedings.
Wi-Fi in courts and rollout of attendance model, courtroom management system, My Court system and automatic transcription.
Renewal and strengthening of computer equipment and management tools, and productivity of the courts.
One-stop-shop in administrative and tax courts.
Inclusion of debtors in the public list of debtors under PEPEX (pre-judicial extrajudicial procedure).
SICRIM (online criminal register portal), integration into the European system, criminal records online and legal electronic certificate.
Code of Procedure in Administrative Courts/SITAF (administrative and fiscal courts information system) (e.g. mandatory e-submission of procedural documents, electronic interface, automatic notifications).
Online portal registration and automatic access management for agents and court administrators, online consultation on the status of cases.
Forensic medicine
Improved management, service system, operational capacity and process control in INMLCF (National Institute of Forensic Medicine and Forensic Sciences).
Industrial property
Granting orders of trademarks, design and patents.
INPI (National Industrial Property Institute) network.
Infrastructure
Installing a central disaster recovery.
Strengthening security and application data of justice's information systems.
Innovation
Creation of space for justice innovation.
Paperless processes for State Secretary of Justice.
Justice portal
Digital justice platform and digital service area in courts.
Online claim service with the Citizen Card.
Knowledge management
Digital document repository.
Language simplification
Improved communication with citizens on payment orders.
Attorney-General’s Office
Prosecutor in Action programme.
Judicial police
Management system for forensic laboratory activity.
Cyber intelligence and online justice.
International police co‑operation: Passenger Information Unit (PIU).
Strengthening the capacity of the Forensic Expertise system.
Enhancing the capacity to collect and analyse digital evidence by the judicial police.
Creation of "malware" incubators for analysis and research purposes.
Acquisition of Wi-Fi – Man in the Middle (MITM) technology solution.
Registries
Automation of birth, death, will, land and other registries.
Modernisation of platforms and introduction of new services in registries and notaries.
Resolve Court
Resolve Court, a pilot court that offers justice and other social services (in partnership with civil society and public administration) with a view to bringing together the judicial function and the resolution of social, economic and labour problems at the local and regional levels.
Transparency
Strategic "Open Government" in court plan
Source: Ministry of Justice of Portugal, 2019.
The result is a comprehensive digitalisation and modernisation package consisting of more than 175 measures (new measures are continuously added to the plan),9 with a total budget of EUR 44 million. These measures are continuously adjusted through an online public consultation process on a dedicated website: www.justicamaisproxima.mj.pt. Each of the initiatives identifies various details on the necessary changes and expected impacts, including the number of targeted/affected companies and estimated savings. The plan specifically targets the needs of various stakeholders of the justice system, including citizens, courts, Ministry of Justice, lawyers, solicitors and others (Table 2.1).
Table 2.1. A justice transformation focused on people and businesses
Improving services, simplifying processes and innovating in courts following “digital by default” while focusing on citizens and businesses
Source: Ministry of Justice of Portugal, 2019.
The process for identifying measures, included as part of the Justiça + Próxima programme, represents an innovative, collaborative and bottom-up effort, with significant input from stakeholders within the judiciary, such as practising judges, the High Council for the Administrative and Fiscal Courts and the High Council of the Judiciary. This consultation process involves a series of workshops in which participants are asked to propose initiatives, including their potential impact.
The design of the plan also engages people and businesses using ICT platforms and allows every stakeholder to submit an idea for the improvement of the justice system, providing an opportunity to make governance and service delivery more collaborative, participatory and transparent. By establishing such procedures for service delivery, justice sectors and governments at large, these actors will become more interconnected and enhance co‑operation with internal and external stakeholders.
More broadly, these strategies are also connected to the country’s broader service modernisation agendas, including Portugal’s ICT Strategy 2020 (Government of Portugal, 2018).
All these strategies are strongly interlinked and represent a broad vision of the Portuguese government for delivering services that are user-driven and respond to citizen needs, including faster and more responsive dispute resolution and increased trust in justice, with a view to fostering inclusive growth.
In parallel, in the criminal justice domain and in accordance with the Framework Law on Criminal Policy, the government submits to parliament a bill establishing criminal policy goals, priorities and guidelines every two years.10 The policy requires consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, including the High Council of the Judiciary, the High Council for the Public Prosecution, the Coordinating Council of the Criminal Police Bodies, the High Council of Internal Security, the Security Coordinating Office and the Portuguese Bar Association.
These strategies present important elements of the vision to enhance efficiency, transparency, user-centricity and effectiveness of the Portuguese justice sector. They are linked to the overall government vision, which provides solid anchoring in the country’s development priorities. Looking ahead and building on this solid foundation, Portugal may consider developing a longer-term justice strategy which brings together different branches of power, goes beyond the electoral cycle and integrates the needs of the people who may be currently excluded from the justice system, with little or no access to court or legal assistance.
Towards a simpler, digital, open and innovative justice system
Building on these strategies, the specific modernisation initiatives in Portugal’s justice sector are developed through three main pillars:
Pillar 1. Simplification
Simplification efforts in the justice sector are primarily developed through the Simplex + programme. Launched in 2016, Simplex + is a cross-cutting programme composed of a set of measures that aims to ensure the simplification of administrative and legislative processes in order to facilitate citizen and business interaction with the administration. Similar to its predecessors, the programme contributes to increasing the internal efficiency of the public services leading to shorter response times to citizen and business requests made to public authorities. Selected justice-related measures developed through Simplex + include (Box 2.4):
Interoperability of information through dematerialisation of data support and introduction of e‑channels between courts, other justice institutions and other entities in the social security, health, education and security sectors.
An online certificate for legal entities to enable fast delivery.
The simplification of court fee payment, waving the need to join paper-based documents certifying payment.
The development of a judicial costs simulator, the possibility of requesting criminal record certificates online, by authenticating with the Citizen Card or the Digital Mobile Key, made available on the portal once the fee has been paid (Ministry of Justice of Portugal, n.d.).
The implementation of electronic proceedings between tax administration and administrative and fiscal courts.
User-subscribed SMS or email alerts for the renewal of citizen cards, driver’s licenses, passports, or online certificates for legal entities.
Online consultation by citizens of their judicial cases.
The simplification of court notifications and writs of summons, ensuring they are legally accurate and comprehensible for citizens, etc.
The underlying objectives of these efforts include improvements to public sector efficiency and effectiveness, support for the development of the business climate and collecting data from citizens and businesses following the “once only” principle. The main aim of these efforts was to identify and target concrete problems in different sectors of the economy.
The project was designed to meet the needs of public service users, thus putting people and businesses at the centre by consulting them during the programme’s design and implementation. The consultation method aimed to integrate the inputs of various stakeholders. In addition to workshops held throughout the country with citizens and businesses, the Simplex + website offered citizens the possibility of presenting innovative ideas to be evaluated for inclusion in the project. In 2017, aiming at further participation of public administration staff, Simplex Jam was introduced as a methodology to generate new ideas for improving public services by creating joint teams from different public administration departments. Simplex + builds on an original bottom-up approach in which rationalisation opportunities were identified through public consultations (see below).11
Box 2.4. Examples of Simplex + achievements in the justice sector
The introduction of the Simplex philosophy in court, in internal and external communication practices with citizens, organisations and judicial activity support functions.
The introduction of online certificates for legal entities to enable fast delivery.
The simplification of court fee payments, waving the need to enclose paper-based documents certifying payment.
The development of a judicial costs simulator.
Improved social security registry management.
The implementation and strengthening of the consumer arbitration network, which aims to promote the extrajudicial resolution of conflicts between consumer and companies.
No further need to provide proof of payment for legal fees and other costs during the judicial procedures.
The creation of a single appointment service for booking various registration services online.
A new mobile application for pilot courts to inform users about the status of legal steps and timelines.
Online criminal record requests, with authentication via the Citizen Card or Digital Mobile Key, made available on the portal once the fee has been paid.
The implementation of electronic proceedings between tax administration and administrative and fiscal courts.
Online consultation by citizens of their judicial cases.
The simplification of court notifications and writs of summons, ensuring they are legally accurate and comprehensible for citizens.
The creation of an SMS alert system for lawyers informing them of adjourned hearings.
Source: Ministry of Justice of Portugal, 2019.
Simplex + has introduced a charter of principles, some of which included:
1. Public administration affairs immediately processed and followed up at a single point of contact for citizens and businesses.
2. Public services accessed online or at a nearby counter.
3. Availability of documents online.
4. Information given to public administration following the “once only” principle.
5. Easy access to public information.
6. Online authentication in a safe and user-friendly manner.
7. Services scheduled online.
More recently, Simplex + activities are being structured according to different life events: birth, health, education, vehicles, work, business, home, family, retirement and death, with three transversal events, leisure, lifelong events and more efficient public administration.
According to Portuguese officials, Simplex initiatives have also been undergoing detailed assessment in relation to their implementation and delivery of results (see section on evaluation and monitoring).
Moreover, simplification measures extend beyond the Simplex + programme. Thus, as part of the Justiça + Próxima programme, parties are now exempt from sending proof of court fee payments to the court, as they are automatically validated by a specific code (Documento Único de Cobrança), making for more automation and thereby reducing the number of documents to be added to the pleading. This innovation also leads to the simplification of the preparation of the final liquidation of court fees of the judicial case.
Pillar 2. Digital solutions
Similar to other government services, justice systems in many places around the world have begun to use digital tools. As part of the Justiça + Próxima programme, Portugal is increasingly employing IT applications in the justice system, including for case management, e-filing, document management, digitalisation of courtroom functions, human resources management (HRM) tools, help desk and public information systems, in order to facilitate the accessibility of justice, especially in courthouses. The current efforts – led by a range of stakeholders across public institutions (Box 2.5) – can be presented as follows:
Digitalisation (dematerialisation) of case management and information – Dematerialisation of cases aims to make the relevant documents easily accessible to different users, with the option to read and annotate as appropriate. Over the past decade, Portugal has been investing in the dematerialisation of case management and information, including the Citius electronic platform, which seeks to provide a single online solution for judges, public prosecutors, lawyers, solicitors, enforcement agents and insolvency practitioners. Citius involves the modernisation of core IT systems in the courts, including judicial electronic processes from courts of first instance to the Supreme Court and more than 100 technological features in all magistrate information systems. A similar platform (SITAF) has been developed in the administrative and fiscal jurisdiction, introducing digital transmission of tax proceedings from administration to administrative and fiscal courts, an innovative feature. The introduction of the digital case file in Portugal facilitates streamlined processes, improves their quality (by reducing manual work) and reduces the costs related to production and storage of files. The adoption of SITAF would bring Portugal closer to paperless working, which can be strengthened once all courts are equipped with the relevant technologies. Combined with the process of rethinking and streamlining procedures (also as part of Simplex +), these measures have the potential to improve the speed of case processing and thus enhance both efficiency and access to justice for people.
Online platforms – The new digital e-services platform www.Justica.gov.pt provides an integrated platform for all sites and eServices of justice, including cost simulators for different proceedings as well as 120 datasets of statistical information. In addition, since November 2018, all cases are accessible to parties and authorised persons through www.Tribunais.org.pt. The authorities have also introduced a range of initiatives to strengthen communication with external stakeholders, including a newsletter, a direct channel for submitting ideas and the requirement for authorities to provide feedback.
Access to information and communication – Portugal has been taking active steps to improve access to information and communication by key stakeholders. Since 2017, parties have the possibility to consult their cases pending before judicial, administrative and fiscal courts, including enforcement cases. Moreover, the launch of a new online portal and the enforcement of the use of Citius for lawyers have enabled the courts to send writs of notice electronically, contributing to easier access to information. Lawyers should also be able to upload videos and audio to their case files, as well as receive notifications by email or text message in the event of postponement of a case hearing. It is also anticipated that citizens should be able to consult their online (from any location using electronic authentication on a web portal).
Box 2.5. Entities involved in the digitalisation process of the judicial system
The judiciary digitalisation process is carried out by the Ministry of Justice in co-operation with three other agencies. First, the Institute of Financial Management and Justice Equipment (IGFEJ) is responsible for the execution and maintenance of the technological resources and justice information systems, adapting management and professional processes to the needs of their users. It guarantees the system’s security, operability and standardisation methods and procedures. Second, the definition of organisation and management policies in courts and the management and training of judicial officers are conducted by both the Directorate-General for the Administration of Justice (DGAJ) and the IGFEJ. Finally, the development, implementation and operation of information systems, as well as the ICT sessions for judges and prosecutors are covered by the Directorate-General for Justice Policy (DGPJ) in close collaboration with the IGFEJ.
The High Council of the Judiciary, the High Council for the Administrative and Fiscal Courts, the Attorney-General Office, the Board for Monitoring Peace Courts and the DGPJ jointly manage data proceedings. These institutions also have an important consultative role for the Co‑ordinating Commission for the Management of Data Relating to the Judicial System. Such a commission, created by means of Law no. 34/2009, also: guarantees co‑ordination among the entities in charge of the management of judicial data; promotes and monitors system security audits; establishes the security requirements of the system; creates and maintains an updated record of the technicians who process that data; and reports any violation of the data legal regime related to the judicial system for criminal or disciplinary proceedings.
The Portuguese Bar Association also plays an important role in the process of justice digitalisation. This entity provides its associates with the digital signature needed to access Citius and the national information system that integrates Citius to provide information on lawyers' professional data and their legal assistance intervention.
Similarly, the Association of Prosecutors and Enforcement Officials (OSAE) has developed a software solution called GPESE/SISAAE (Public Office Procedural Management Guidelines for Civil Servants) which also articulates with the Citius system.
Last but not least, the Commission for Monitoring Court Assistants, created by Law no. 77/2013, monitors, inspects and determines disciplinary measures for assistants in courts, and uses Citius and SISAAE to pursue dematerialisation and electronic procedures in Courts to strength transparency, swiftness and efficiency of all judicial actors involved in enforcement and insolvency procedures.
Source: Government of Portugal Official website.
Importantly, in line with the philosophy of Simplex +, the Justiça + Próxima programme includes initiatives on clear language and information aimed at citizens, including the pilot “writing clear” in judicial processes. In particular, Portugal has introduced rules and norms for presenting judgments and listing the grounds given by the judge. For example, it has implemented “standardised” judicial documents, which aim to make it easier for judges to draft decisions and for litigants to understand them (Ministry of Justice of Portugal, 2017) (Figure 2.2).
Figure 2.2. Payment order template
Source: Ministry of Justice of Portugal, 2019.
The introduction of these tools also aims to help the country and its courts, non-judicial mechanisms and legal aid/assistance to face current pressure on available resources effectively. It can support courts in fulfilling their fundamental mission for society by providing justice for all, an objective mirrored in UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target 16.3, to which Portugal has committed under the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Indeed, Portugal has obtained increasingly significant scores in all areas of integration of technology in court operations – defined by the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) as the direct assistance to judges and court clerks, support for court administration and management, and support for interaction/communication between courts and parties – since 2010.12 In fact, Portugal is considered as one of the most advanced countries in Europe in terms of digitalisation in the justice sector (CEPEJ, 2018).
Current transformation efforts in Portugal provide a strong foundation to further mobilise technological capabilities, through emerging technologies (such as artificial intelligence and blockchain) to build a digitally-enabled, seamless, people-centred justice ecosystem. In line with good practices increasingly found in OECD countries, such an ecosystem could integrate both judicial and alternative mechanisms to resolve disputes, support effective triage of cases and enable multichannel dispute resolution avenues.
Portugal is currently preparing a basis for establishing online systems that could support the resolution of disputes. These systems could help diagnose the legal problems of citizens and businesses, and inform them of their rights and options in order to help protect them and resolve their disputes by using big data. They can also provide an assisted negotiation stage, which could be followed by a seamless transition to an adjudication, depending on the nature of the dispute and involved stakeholders. This type of one‑stop‑shop for dispute resolution can facilitate the creation of a justice ecosystem and transform the resolution of disputes (Taskforce on Justice, 2019).
To take the “one-stop justice shop” further, the initiative is scheduled to be linked to the existing citizens’ portal to facilitate early identification of problems and provide a unique interface for citizens. Interoperability of data and big data could also help in this regard. The single digital Citizen Card and recently introduced Digital Mobile Key in Portugal could be extended to legal and justice services to enable greater accessibility of such services and shift their focus on the preventive and restorative facets.
In addition, in order to maximise the impact of transformation efforts and enable judges to focus more on the adjudication of complex cases (which require a certain level of scrutiny and consideration), Portugal may consider developing a holistic service delivery system that integrates alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms to ensure that courts do not consider unnecessary cases. Portugal, like other OECD countries, has already adopted a number of important initiatives in this regard, by establishing common and integrated online platforms for different ADR channels, and planning the integration with the court platform (Box 2.6). This would serve as a strong basis for developing an integrated triage system for resolving disputes.
Box 2.6. Online dispute resolution
Online dispute resolution (ODR) is an electronic form of dispute resolution. It can take the format of negotiation, mediation or arbitration and utilises technology to facilitate communication and document sharing between parties. ODR can increase access to justice for those living in a remote location and can provide a quicker and simpler route to dispute resolution. Internationally, ODR initiatives have been primarily launched for consumer complaints, small civil claims and financial family law matters. The 2013 Directive on ADR for Consumer Disputes and the 2013 Regulation on ODR for Consumer Disputes have made online dispute resolution a priority in the European Union.
Canada – The Canadian Civil Resolution Tribunal
The Civil Resolution Tribunal was established in 2012 under the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act. It started with condominium disputes in 2016 and began resolving small claims in 2017. The goal is to encourage collaborative problem-solving approaches to dispute resolution. Small tribunal claims must go through the tribunal before proceeding to provincial court. However, the court still has a role if the tribunal refuses to resolve the claim, a party objects to the tribunal’s decision, or if it is determined that the tribunal does not have jurisdiction. This is Canada’s first online tribunal. It is available for small claims disputes dealing with debts, damages and recovery of personal property of CAD 5 000 and under, or condominium property disputes of any value. The tribunal is expected to roll out capacity to deal with motor vehicle accident claims of CAD 50 000 and under starting April 2019. Individuals use the Solution Explorer to diagnose their dispute and obtain free legal information and standard templates. If they cannot resolve the dispute, they can apply directly from this software using a type form. Once the application is accepted, a secure and confidential negotiation platform is provided for the parties to attempt to reach an agreement. If an agreement cannot be reached, a facilitator will be appointed to aid the parties. At this stage, any agreement made can be turned into an order which can be enforced as though it was a court order. If a decision still cannot be reached, an independent member of the tribunal will make a decision – again, which can be enforced like a court order. The tribunal is part of the justice system and has independent and neutral members. Fees are charged to file a dispute based on the amount in the claim. If individuals do not have access to a computer, they can also complete the application on paper.
Canada – MyLawBC
This is another online platform for those going through a separation. It offers three pathways – drafting a separation plan, obtaining a family order and serving a court document. Each pathway asks the user questions and leads them to a list of steps of what to do next. It also acts as a negotiation platform for spouses to discuss issues and draft an agreement simultaneously. Each of the pathways takes 20 minutes or less to complete. The platform also has a dialogue tool, which builds the framework of a legal agreement for the parties to complete. The soft launch took place in February 2016 on family law issues and the project expanded to include foreclosure matters in March 2016. Changes were rolled out in the following months and developers are making adjustments based on public interaction with the site.
England and Wales – Online claims system pilot
Claims of up to GBP 10 000 can be made and the platform provides online dispute resolution and mediation. Operational since 2017, it has been developed in consultation with the judiciary, representatives from the advice and legal community as well as users.
The Netherlands – Rechtwijer 2.0 and Justice42
The Rechtwijer 2.0 platform was available for divorce and separation proceedings and rolled out in two versions. The first version gave the user an interactive experience tailored to their needs with advice and referrals. The second sought to provide online dispute resolution. The project was part of a three-year collaboration between the Hague Institute for Innovation of Law (HiiL), the Dutch Legal Aid Board and Modria. It was dissolved in July 2017 as it became financially unsustainable for the private sector but was transformed into Justice42. Justice42 focuses primarily on the Dutch divorce market and seeks to incorporate the lessons learned from Rechtwijer. Lessons learned from Rechtwijer include:
users not wanting to fund solutions themselves
dwindling public subsidy for the project making private funding a requirement
only 1% of divorces handled in the Netherlands.
After looking at the lessons learned above, Justice42 was designed as an online platform to aid couples in divorce agreements. It allows the entire divorce to be arranged online, at a fixed price per stage and with guidance, using the platform www.uitelkaar.nl.
United States – Teleservices
Drug courts in Montana are using teleservices to help those in remote areas. The services can perform a remote screening and referral process for cases, allow individuals to observe video proceedings remotely and enable videoconferencing for regular status hearings or one-on-one counselling. The courts are also using an application to monitor alcohol use and location and can connect a breathalyser device to the user’s phone with an alert or timer indicating when this must be used. In addition, text messages for motivational support, reminders and community events are sent to the individual.
Source: Civil Resolution Tribunal (2019), Welcome to the Civil Resolution Tribunal, http://civilresolutionbc.ca; British Columbia Legal Services Society (2016), MyLawBC, http://factum.mylawbc.com/blog; My Law BC (2019), Separation, Divorce and Family Matters, https://mylawbc.com/; Government of the United Kingdom (2018c), “Quicker way to resolve claim disputes launched online”, www.gov.uk/government/news/quicker-way-to-resolve-claim-disputes-launched-online; Committee for Justice (2016), “Report on justice in the 21st century: Innovative approaches for the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland”, www.niassembly.gov.uk/globalassets/documents/justice-2011-2016/copy-of-the-justice-in-the-21st-century-report-with-appendices.pdf; Justice42 (2017), Homepage, http://justice42.nl (accessed 18 February 2019); Otis, K. et al. (2017), Teleservices: Happening Now!, www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Teleservices.pdf.
Finally, in view of the broader strategic objective of Portugal to facilitate sound business climate and user-centricity, there is scope to link legal services and dispute resolution for businesses to the online business portal. To be effective, these efforts should be underpinned by a systematic survey of business legal needs, experiences and barriers in resolving disputes in order to help Portugal to tailor further its initiatives and services, supporting efficient dispute resolution for an effective business climate.
Pillar 3. Fostering justice innovation
Justice innovation can play an important role in boosting productivity and citizen responsiveness as well as finding solutions to complex problems. Portugal is investing special efforts to promote a culture of innovation to transform the nature of service delivery and identify new solutions to complex challenges, such as promoting social and territorial cohesion. One example is a property one-stop-shop pilot project tested in 14 municipalities. After significant fires affected the Portuguese territory in 2018, the authorities recognised the lack of information about landowners and property boundaries, also affecting other areas of governance, such as finance (taxation), agriculture and the environment. To address these gaps, the authorities have created an electronic platform linking owners and public administration in order to provide, through interoperability, a one-stop shop to access the integrated information of several public entities and to promote property identification and facilitated data modification. A deductive model was first created, listing properties and land according to information available in different public administration databases, both central and local (Box 2.7). The model allowed the development of an algorithm capable of identifying new properties and their characteristics.
Box 2.7. The Balcão Único do Prédio (BUPi, Property One-stop Shop) project
The Portuguese government piloted the BUPi (Balcão Único do Prédio, One-stop Shop for Properties) project to better identify land, its owners and boundaries for increased protection and territorial planning. This initiative aimed to create incentives for owners to identify their land and was designed as a collaborative platform with interoperating data available from central and local authorities.
The project was designed for a better understanding of the territory, its landowners and property boundaries, to better protect them and to improve land-use planning. It is a collaborative initiative involving different government areas: justice (registries), environment, agriculture, finances as well as municipalities.
To begin with, ten municipalities were selected to participate and test a pilot version of the project, for which the first conclusions and findings would be validated a year later and, after that, implemented on a national scale. The project involved developing a closer, decentralised customer service experience, made up of both mobile and physical information counters, tailored to the citizens’ requirements. The information gathered during the pilot is accessible, interoperable and available on a single platform, allowing data to be filed, organised and accessed in a simple, visual and user-friendly way. After, harnessing existing knowledge of the territory, divided up among different public and non-public databases, the authorities developed an algorithm capable of identifying new properties, estimating their locations, sizes, shapes and owners. Pilot testing led to automated determination of probable location, allowing for an accelerated process.
Some of the success factors included:
Government commitment both on a national and regional scale with the necessary resources (financial, team allocation with empowerment and autonomy).
Development and availability of the necessary tools to design the processes, in particular for the municipalities, registries and other organisations.
Clear and active involvement of local associations and companies for a broader and more effective adoption of land identification and location.
Fast and clear communication among those involved, in particular to clarify doubts on or improve the BUPi project.
Maturity of technologies and their ease of use, agility and adaptability of processes and, above all, the active and continuous involvement of stakeholders.
Structured team of procedural and technological platform support.
Availability of mapping and big data analysis to provide and improve the location of properties.
In parallel, to foster further the spirit of innovation in the justice sector, the authorities are adopting modern tools, such as the establishment of the Justice Innovation Hub (Box 2.8). In addition, the Ministry of Justice introduced new ways of working in a more collaborative environment by creating an innovation room as a place to hold brainstorming sessions, discussions and workshops.
Box 2.8. Justice Innovation Hub in Portugal
The Justice Hub is a collaborative workspace created at the Justice Campus in Lisbon and aims to aggregate teams involved in justice modernisation and transformation projects.
This is a project-oriented work model, with multidisciplinary teams from different entities within the justice system as well as external, involving project managers, designers, development teams, working in a single space on different projects, from transformation initiatives, such as the new registry model, to modernisation, such as Simplified Land Registration, BUPi, SIRAUTO, the Digital Justice Platform and various associated services, including certificates or even the different Citius interfaces.
Different events linked to good practices, such as workshops, community initiatives and hackathons, will also be developed in this space. The space aims to serve as a collaborative model between the different areas of public administration, but also in interaction with start-ups and universities in order to facilitate value and knowledge transfer to the administration of justice.
Source: Government of Portugal, 2019.
The ministry also reports implementing agile methodologies to introduce change and question the status quo whenever possible, with a view to enhancing flexibility and efficiency in managing resources, contributing to a more productive work environment and setting up efficient communication channels between the parties involved. In particular, it reports using different management improvement techniques (e.g. Kaizen) in courts in order to promote continuous improvement and to stimulate a new environment and culture among the courts and clerks.
Optimising justice service delivery
Judicial map
The location of courts directly affects the distance citizens must travel for justice, the judicial caseload and potential backlog, the public monies required to staff or resource courts, and the quality and performance of services. A properly drawn judicial map can optimise case flow and improve co‑ordination between judges at different offices. Reforming the judicial map calls for an understanding of how litigation is distributed in terms of volume, type and proximity and the efficiencies or shortcomings in court performance and its users. In particular, by using an overview of the current map and case flow, a list of court objectives and measurable performance indicators, one can ensure a judicial map operates effectively and provides equal access to justice (CEPEJ, 2013) (Box 2.9).
The structure of the judicial map has undergone multiple reforms over the last years in Portugal, including the 2013 reform, which consolidated the country’s 231 judicial courts of first instance into 23 district clusters. In this context, the Justiça + Próxima programme, in turn, envisages a series of measures to further optimise the judicial map, which aim to alleviate some concerns about the growing concentration and centralisation of courts, in view of the distance between the courts and some population living in remote areas. In particular, authorities report re-evaluating the judicial map,13 reopening several small courts14 and strengthening court capacities for video conferencing15 and other equipment.
Furthermore, in order to improve court infrastructure to accommodate the reforms – among other initiatives16 – Portugal has introduced a Strategic Multi-Year 2018-28 Plan for Improvement and Modernisation of Courts, which was developed through a series of public discussions and includes measures to strengthen physical infrastructure, human resources and the use of technology in courts.17
Finally, in response to concerns about the resulting discontinuity in data at court district level (OECD, 2019), the Portuguese authorities report that most of the data was recovered and data collection resumed in late 2015/early 2016 after a series of consistency tests.
It would be important to evaluate the impacts of these initiatives on the accessibility of justice services, quality of justice infrastructure and data collection processes.
Court specialisation
The experience of OECD member states shows that specialised courts can enhance the timeliness and improve the quality of justice services (Box 2.10). These courts provide dedicated services to deal with technical or community-related matters and are often used to improve efficiency by allowing judges to deepen knowledge in specific areas of law, reducing judicial workloads in general courts of first instance and providing a consistent and accurate interpretation of the law.
In Portugal, the 2013 Law on Judicial Organisation placed an emphasis on various types of specialisation, introducing a new model of competencies (specialised courts and divisions in all territory, not only in urban centres). The grouping in clusters has allowed greater specialisation of courts. Notably, specialisation was in many instances achieved through specialised “local sections or branches” (e.g. commercial courts are not standalone courts but branches within a district court; thus, 16 courts specialising in commercial cases compared to the 4 prior to the reform, are all local sections or branches). Authorities report that the number of labour sections has also increased and they now cover 70% of the territory (a significant increase from 20%). Overall, the reform also increased the number of family and juvenile courts, criminal instruction courts, enforcement courts and commercial courts. To serve in specialised courts, judges should have at least ten years of experience.18 Greater investment in specialised judicial training could further help to maximise the effectiveness of these reforms (OECD, 2019).
Another important dimension of judicial specialisation is enabling judges to focus on adjudication and to limit auxiliary tasks (such as case preparation and management, research and drafting of administrative documents). As shown in the 2019 OECD Economic Survey of Portugal, evidence from OECD countries and Portugal indeed shows that judicial decision-making can significantly speed up if judges are supported by legal assistants/clerks (OECD, 2019), which is currently limited in Portugal.
Box 2.9. OECD country examples of judicial mapping for an optimised workload
France – Judicial Map reform
France underwent reform of its judicial map in 2012. During the reassessment, it was identified that 169 of the small jurisdiction courts were operating at a non-optimal level of organisation without full-time staff. This contributed to losses in performance, efficiency and the rationalisation of financial resources. In response, the judicial map was redefined and the number of jurisdictions was decreased from 1 190 to 863. In addition to jurisdictional changes, specialised courts were established for organised crime, health, terrorism and other highly technical fields. While reform to the judicial map increased the activity of the courts, this was expected given that the number of courts had decreased. It was also noted that in some jurisdictions where courts of first instance were combined, judges closely collaborate resulting in unified methods. In other jurisdictions, such as Dunkirk, the remaining court created a new specialised chamber (in this case for family matters), which decreased processing times to a lower level than the national average.
The Netherlands – Act on the Reform of the Judicial Map
The Netherlands reformed its judicial map in 2013 based on data gathered in 2010. During the assessment, it was noted that some courts were too small to handle a caseload efficiently and in a cost-effective manner while ensuring quality performance. In light of these concerns, the judicial map was redrawn to reduce the number of smaller courts, resulting in a reduction of district courts from 19 to 11, and first instance venues from 52 to 32. Merging these jurisdictions resulted in regional co‑operation and lessened workload problems. The number of court boards also decreased, making court administration more efficient and effective; it was, however, noted that future thought should be given to avoid making these boards over-bureaucratic and anonymous.
Latvia – Reform to Jurisdictions
Reform of Latvia’s judicial map was initiated in 2015 and completed by 2018. Prior to the reform, the country had a wide network of courts of first instance, many of which covered small jurisdictions. For example, 65% of district (city) courts were found to have less than 7 judges. In comparison, Riga’s city courts heard up to 40% of all civil cases in the country.
In addition, Latvia’s judicial system, although three-tiered, was intricately designed with varying levels of jurisdiction assigned to various courts, making the system difficult to understand. The judicial map was transformed to reduce unequal caseload distribution, enhance specialisation of judges, increase the quality of rules, reduce case length and optimise resource allocation. Smaller district courts were combined within the same region, gradually reorganising 34 district courts into 9. In addition to this, one parental court was created in each enlarged district, ensuring the consistent application of laws and provision of services. The level of courts was also revised, removing first instance powers from regional courts. This made the three-tiered system more rational and easier to understand for users.
Finally, reform of the judicial map included the creation of specialised courts. Five courts in particular were established to deal with administrative cases, as well as additional specialised courts for military, tax and land registry matters. These specialised courts are seen as courts of first instance, capable of dealing with sensitive areas of the law.
Source: Della Chiesa, M. (2012), Comparative Study of the Reforms of the Judicial Maps in Europe, https://rm.coe.int/comparative-study-of-the-reforms-of-the-judicial-maps-in-europe/168078c53a; Wiertz-Wezenbeck, C. et al. (eds.) (2014), Judicial Reform in the Netherlands, www.rechtspraak.nl/SiteCollectionDocuments/judicial-refrom-in-the-Netherlands-2014.pdf; Aavik, M. et al (2018), Report: Evaluation of the Latvian Judicial System on the Basis of the Methodology and Tools Developed by the CEPEJ, www.ta.gov.lv/UserFiles/Faili/CEPEJ_Evaluation_Report_Latvia_Final_En.pdf.
Box 2.10. Court specialisation experiences in OECD countries
Norway – Complaint boards and tribunals
Norway uses many different tribunals and complaint boards to supplement the justice system through dispute resolution. Proceedings for these boards are completed in writing, requiring less time than an in-person hearing. They are either free or subject to a modest fee. Some of the boards have incorporated e-justice schemes whereby complaints can be submitted electronically and individuals can follow developments. Since these complaint boards started, a lower number of new civil cases have been brought forward to the courts. These processes have been incorporated into the justice system through the Norway Dispute Act. Norway also uses conciliation boards, which use laypeople instead of members of the judiciary to resolve disputes. These boards are present in almost every municipality as a more approachable forum for justice than the court centre. These boards deal with pecuniary cases and parties to a dispute are obliged to attend before progressing a matter before the court, unless alternative dispute resolution has been attempted in another format.
Canada – Specialised courts
There are 11 specialised courts, including courts for domestic violence, First Nations, integrated courts, drug treatment courts and community courts. Each type has a different objective and approach to therapeutic justice and has been created for a particular issue in the community. The purpose is to deal with underlying reasons for criminal behaviour and to avoid the negative impacts of adversarial courts on defendants, victims and witnesses. The specialised courts are found to have contributed to improving access to health and social service information, efficiency and sentencing options. Partnerships with community organisations have been important in facilitating resources. For example, the Vancouver Downtown Community Court opened in 2008 to deal with city core crime. It is a partnership between 2 levels of court as well as social agencies and deals with 2 000 defendants per year. The domestic violence courts work with community service providers and can hear all domestic violence offences except for the most serious ones. Approximately 50 files are scheduled to be heard on each court date.
Source: Haukeland Fredriksen, H. and M. Strandberg (2016), “Is e-justice reform of Norwegian civil procedure finally happening?”, www.idunn.no/oslo_law_review/2016/02/is_e- justice_reform_of_norwegian_civil_procedure_finally_ha; Canadian Ministry of Justice (2016), Specialized Courts Strategy, https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/about-bc-justice-system/justice-reform-initiatives/specialized-courts-strategy.pdf.
Management of the judiciary and courts
The measures brought forth by the Justiça + Próxima programme also involve steps to strengthen management of the judiciary and courts, including fiscal and administrative matters, the most significant being the implementation of a case management indicators system in administrative and tax courts.
Portugal has recently introduced a new model of court management, which aims to improve overall efficiency and performance (administrative tasks traditionally belonging to the judge president of each court are now allocated to the court administrator and registrar, thus leaving judges free to exercise their technical legal competencies). This model was introduced with a view of strengthening the quality of management processes in the judiciary. Each district (comarca) is headed by a management committee consisting of a president judge (designated by the High Council), a judiciary administrator (designated by the presiding judge among candidates previously selected by the Ministry of Justice) and a representative of the general prosecutor (designated by the High Council of the Public Prosecution). Each party has its own powers and the presiding judge must communicate with the High Council of the Judiciary, the co‑ordinating prosecutor with the High Council of the Public Prosecution, and the judiciary administrator with the Ministry of Justice (through the Directorate-General for the Administration of Justice – DGAJ). The administrator, with the general orientation of the presiding judge, can temporarily or permanently relocate court clerks inside the county and under the limits legally established. The presiding judge can propose to the High Council the reallocation of judges or of cases, aiming to even the workload of judges and the efficiency of the court.19 The co‑ordinating prosecutor can reallocate cases and can propose to the High Council of the Public Prosecution the reallocation of public prosecutors.
The committee has the authority to:
approve the semi-annual and annual reports
approve a draft budget of the judicial demarcation (comarca, based on the pre-determined allocation) to be submitted to the Ministry of Justice
propose budget modifications
approve a proposal for the modification of the staff map to be submitted to the Ministry of Justice;
monitor budget execution.
The measures under the Justiça + Próxima plan (see Annex A for the discussion of roles and responsibilities) also offer the High Council for Administrative and Tax Courts and the Attorney-General Office tools to monitor and evaluate the activity of the courts, contributing to a speedy reaction and within their competencies. The Justiça + Próxima plan also aimed to enable the:
implementation of an information system to support planning, management and decision-making of district court management bodies
implementation of an electronic system to manage the distribution and booking of courtrooms.
In 2013, the tax and administrative court territory was divided into four different zones, each presided by a judge. At the court level, the authority lies with the presiding judge of each court of first instance and the judicial administrator (in courts with more than ten judges) or with the secretary of the court (in courts with less than ten judges). At the national level, the management powers for administrative and tax courts of first instance lie with the High Council for the Administrative and Tax Courts. The High Council does not have the competency to set strategic performance goals for courts of first instance but has a number of managerial competencies, in co‑operation with the Ministry of Justice, such as setting a caseload and timelines for judges and establishing the criteria for assigning cases to judges.
Experience of OECD and partner countries suggests that judicial efficiency is considered to be affected by other factors such as resources and governance in courts. Improving resource management and good governance within courts can reduce trial length without reducing the quality of judicial decisions (Palumbo et al., 2013). In Portugal, the new court management model has a strong potential to improve overall efficiency and performance. To maximise the impact of the new approach, in line with international evidence (e.g. Palumbo et al., 2013), Portugal may consider options for granting greater autonomy for court presidents, including financial autonomy and budget management matters, in order to support them in achieving the objectives for which they are accountable. For example, court presidents could have greater responsibility for case flow management, including through reporting to the High Council of the Judiciary on very complex cases. Maintaining flexibility, such as the possibility for court presidents to relocate judges to more congested courts, could also help resolve any remaining bottlenecks, also in view of different workloads across the court (Pereira and Wemans, 2017; OECD, 2019).
Importantly, in accordance with growing evidence (e.g. Palumbo et al., 2013), governance of the justice sector matters to ensure the effective functioning of the system. Portugal has recently aligned itself with an increasing international tendency to improve the performance of courts and individual judges through court management mechanisms. In Portugal, Articles 90 and 91 of the Law on the Organisation of the Judicial System (Law no. 62/2013, of 26 August) mandate the High Judicial Council, the General Prosecutor and the government (Ministry of Justice) to establish procedural objectives for the judicial courts of first instance and prosecutors. Procedural objectives are triennial productivity objectives for each magistrate. Those objectives may be for the whole national territory or specific to each judicial demarcation (comarca). The notion of procedural objectives is mainly quantitative (i.e. the number of trials or judicial processes held and their duration) but some case weighting is also mandatory (qualitative notion), as Article 91 determines that, among other factors, the nature, complexity and amount (money at stake) of the cases have to be taken into account while assessing the productivity (i.e. the human and other resources employed in the achievement of the “referential procedural values”).20
Similarly, management of judicial human resources plays an important role in improving the performance of the judiciary. In Portugal, performance appraisal of judges is done by an inspection body (Judicial Assessment Service), which consists of 20 inspectors who are mainly former judges from the Courts of Appeal, with more than 20 years of experience as judges.21 The regular performance appraisal of judges is carried out after his/her first year in office and then every four years. The appraisal involves a detailed report with a mark proposal, which has to be ratified by the High Judicial Council, prior to a hearing of the incumbent. The decision of the High Judicial Council may be appealed before the Supreme Court, although, according to the interviewed stakeholders, the appeals appear to be rare.
To strengthen the positive performance impact of the appraisal process and to align the appraisal criteria to the stated objectives of better court management, Portugal may have an opportunity to reflect on the current appraisal processes and indicators with a view to further alignment (e.g. by enhancing attention to quantitative indicators while introducing sound case-weighting mechanisms). In this context, the High Council of the Judiciary approved in 2016 a new regulation for inspections, setting evaluation criteria,22 which is binding to inspection activities. In particular, the regulation suggests to take into account the following criteria – inter alia:
Productivity (i.e. the resolution rate, which is obtained by dividing the number of processes concluded by the number of processes entered in the same year, and the recovery rate, which is the relationship between closed files and the sum of pending and new files).
Decision deadlines and procedure lengths, as well as a judge’s contribution to annual goals.
Along with these criteria (productivity and speed), Portugal may consider introducing transparent and negotiated case-weighting criteria and a more or less automated distribution of cases, within the limits of the principle of “natural judge”.
Administrative and fiscal procedure reform
There are a number of measures included under the Justiça + Próxima plan to modernise administrative and fiscal procedure:
The One-Stop Shop of the Administrative and Fiscal Courts (Balcão Único) started as a pilot project in Sintra and was replicated in all other administrative and fiscal courts from the 1st of January 2018. It allows citizens in any administrative and fiscal court to obtain information and certificates on pending cases, to deliver procedural documents and to consult cases, regardless of the court in which the case is pending.
The mandatory electronic filing of cases and documents for lawyers and the availability of electronic notifications.
The extension of SITAF to all superior courts (central administrative courts and the Administrative Supreme Court).
The above-mentioned implementation of a case management indicators system to administrative and tax courts, offering the High Council for the Administrative and Tax Courts and the Attorney-General Office tools to monitor and evaluate the courts’ activity, making for greater efficiency and reactivity within their competencies.
These measures also build on waves of reforms of the administrative and fiscal procedure, most notably in 2001-04,23 which involved significant innovations in the administrative fiscal judicial organisation by reinforcing some taxpayer guarantees, simplifying the fiscal procedure, amplifying the traditional annulment jurisdiction of administrative and fiscal courts, and giving the judges broader powers. Yet, in accordance with the different stakeholders, due to various constraints (such as limited human resources, namely judges and court clerks, insufficient training, transfer of pending cases to new courts and the malfunctioning of the SITAF information system), the new courts have become congested relatively quickly (Gomes and Fernando, 2017).
In 2015, the jurisdiction of administrative courts was extended to judge on a wider range of cases, for example, on administrative offences related to the violation of urban planning.24 The administrative procedure was also brought closer to the nature of the civil procedure.
In 2017, the authorities introduced a set of new measures to further rationalise and improve the administrative and fiscal procedure. These included the new25 and complementary26 establishment plans for judges for the administrative and fiscal courts, accompanied by a complementary establishment plan, the new establishment plan for administrative and fiscal court inspectors27 and introduced the One-Stop Shop for Administrative and Fiscal Courts (Balcão Único).28 These were followed by new measures implemented under the Justiça + Próxima programme, such as the extension of the possibility given to parties to consult their judicial cases to all proceedings pending in judicial and administrative and fiscal courts.29
In September 2018, the Council of Ministers approved five different legislative actions towards the reform of the administrative and fiscal jurisdiction: i) a draft law to amend the ETAF (the Statute of Administrative and Fiscal Courts), adopting the specialisation of first instance courts, a new management model and a new model for the court support office ;30 ii) a draft law to amend the procedural regimes of administrative and fiscal cases, aiming at its simplification;31 iii) a decree-law32 was approved, foreseeing special measures to reduce the backlog in administrative33 and fiscal courts; iv) an amendment to the Litigation Costs Regulation was approved,34 foreseeing a reduction of court costs if the litigant resorts to the use of approved forms (approved but not yet in force)35 to deliver claims and counterclaims; v) a draft law36 was approved in order to apply the fiscal enforcement procedure to enforced recovery of court costs.37
Alternative dispute resolution
Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) has become a central component of access to justice across OECD member and partner countries. ADR is seen as offering quicker and less expensive solutions, focusing on reconciling parties and offering them the chance of a compromised and sustainable resolution to their dispute and avoiding going to court and related expenses. While there is a growing variety of ADR mechanisms across OECD and partner countries, the most common forms include tribunals, Ombudsman scheme, arbitration, mediation, negotiation, whether court-annexed or not (Box 2.11). ADR mechanisms can also be specialised to meet diverse legal needs, i.e. based on the type of, nature of, or stakeholders to the dispute, e.g. business arbitration, family law mediation, small claims, administrative review, etc. Their binding nature also varies depending on the way they are enforced and incorporated into the country’s justice system.
Failing the recourse to or the success of ADR in resolving a dispute, such proceedings continue to allow parties to prepare for a future trial by gathering evidence, for instance. In turn, it can decrease the risks of delay and extra workloads for court personnel and contribute to overall court efficiency by reducing caseloads, limit judicial backlog, streamline trials and cut costs to the justice system.
Box 2.11. Selected ADR approaches in OECD countries
Singapore – Court-annexed ADR
Primary dispute resolution centres were established in Singapore in 1994 as court-annexed ADR services for civil cases. Personal injury or non-injury motor accident claims are automatically referred for ADR, while all other matters are encouraged to attend ADR before trial. A judge can also refer cases to ADR at any time; 7 292 cases were mediated in 2013 and 6 420 in 2014 – at settlement rates of 90% (Menon, 2015). Since 2015, the state has also established the State Courts Centre for Dispute Resolution, which conducts mediations, conciliation and neutral evaluations of cases. Personal injury cases filed in the state courts are managed through this process within eight weeks of filing by the defendant. Claims between CAD 60 000 and CAD 250 000 in district courts are presumed to take part in this process unless they opt out (Singapore State Courts, 2018b).
The Singapore Mediation Centre (SMC) is another mediation provider, which was launched in 1997 by the then Chief Justice as a not-for-profit organisation. It is designed to resolve private commercial matters and works closely with the Supreme Court. The SMC has resolved over 3 600 matters, most of which within one working day. Of the disputants who attended, 84% reported cost savings and 88% reported time savings. More than 94% of attendees said they would recommend the process (Singapore Mediation Centre, 2019). In addition to these methods, Singapore established a Family Justice Court in 2014 as a less confrontational approach to justice. All parents who attend these courts and have children under 21 years of age are required to attend (Singapore State Courts, 2018c).
In order to ensure that ADR is incorporated into the litigation process, the government plays an active role in encouraging litigants through legislation. One of its strengths has been to maintain a pool of experienced mediators, to avoid ADR getting slowed down by a lack of available trained professionals. Two additional mediation schemes have been launched by the Singapore State Courts in 2017. They include an e-negotiation platform for the Community Justice and Tribunals System and a Short Mediation and Hearing initiative. The first allows for secure negotiations to take place in a confidential manner before parties come to court. The second fast tracks cases without complex legal issues (Sundaresh, 2017).
Slovenia – Incentive: Fee Policy
Policymakers have legislated an incentive for parties to reach a settlement through a fee policy. Parties are encouraged to use ADR and a judge can propose a settlement to the parties by way of writing at any stage in the trial. If the parties reach a settlement, two-thirds of the court fee is returned to the claimant, which has amounted to 15%-20% of cases ending in a settlement.
Canada – DRO Program
The Dispute Resolution Officer programme is for parties involved in a child support dispute. Parties must attend a mandatory one-hour session to discuss mediation, attended by a family law specialist who provides neutral advice and works to help the parties resolve a dispute. The programme provides the benefit of a family law practitioner for those who are self-represented and provides parties with some control over the decision. It also streamlines proceedings by requiring necessary forms and basic evidence to be completed prior to appearance.
Sources: Singapore State Courts (2018a), Overview of Alternative Dispute Resolution, www.statecourts.gov.sg/cws/Mediation_ADR/Pages/Overview-of-Alternative-Dispute-Resolution.aspx; Menon, S. (2015), “Building sustainable mediation programs: A Singapore perspective”, www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/dispute_resolution_magazine/fall-2015/10_menon_international_dispatch.pdf; Singapore State Courts (2018b), Overview of State Courts Centre for Dispute Resolution, www.statecourts.gov.sg/cws/Mediation_ADR/Pages/Overview-of-State-Courts-Centre-for-Dispute-Resolution.aspx; Singapore Mediation Centre (2019), Our Achievements, www.mediation.com.sg/about-us/; Sundaresh, M. (2017), Advancing Justice: Expanding the Possibilities, Singapore State Courts Annual Report, https://www.statecourts.gov.sg/cws/Resources/Documents/OJAR_StateCourts_AR_A4_V4.pdf; LUT University (n.d.), “Inventory of caseflow management practices in European civil proceedings: Appendix 1 for the caseflow management handbook”, www.lut.fi/documents/27578/419707/Inventory+of+caseflow+management+practices.pdf/51893738-f8fc-4c19-a6d5-28fa5e756347 (accessed 18 February 2019); Government of Alberta (2019), Dispute Resolution Officer Program, www.alberta.ca/dispute-resolution-officer-program.aspx.
The Directorate-General for Justice Policy (Direção-Geral da Política de Justiça, DGPJ) under the Ministry of Justice oversees the development of all ADR mechanisms (private and public) and support their functioning to some extent.
In Portugal, ADR mechanisms, i.e. Arbitration, Mediation and Justice of the Peace are becoming increasingly popular, and are part and parcel of the latest modernisation efforts:
Arbitration – There are both public and private arbitration centres in Portugal,38 and – in accordance with the Barometer of Quality of Arbitration Centres – are viewed as beneficial in improving the efficiency of dispute resolution and reducing the backlog of court cases (DGPJ, 2018a). The DGPJ participates in the council of the privately run centres that are responsible for assessing its activities. The DGPJ has consultative powers in these councils, where it gives its opinion about the documents that the centre presents that will then be forwarded to the general assembly. As in many OECD countries, arbitration is specialised in Portugal. For instance, the ministry-supported centres offer services based respectively on consumer, automotive, insurance, industrial property, administrative and tax matters. Most recently the Administrative Arbitration Board, a nationwide private arbitration centre on public procurement, was established.39 The state and state entities may enter into arbitration agreements provided that the disputes concern private law (as opposed to public law). The Portuguese legislation provides a similar regime for domestic and international arbitration and extends arbitration to other fields such as tax disputes and, in limited cases, labour disputes.
Mediation – Portugal has also established a public and private mediation system40 (including for family, labour and criminal mediation). Mediation is voluntary and takes place out-of-court. The Ministry of Justice compiles a list of mediators. No specific requirements are needed to register except when the mediator wishes to act within the public mediation systems.41 The ministry offers non-compulsory certified training. The DGPJ supervises state-run mediators, unlike privately run centres. The only exception goes to the private mediators signed on the list of private mediators managed by the DGPJ. There are 183 public mediators, as well as 566 private mediators signed on the list organised by the Ministry of Justice. The mediation agreement is enforceable directly under specific circumstances if the mediator is registered.42 The public mediation system is increasingly popular according to Portugal: 30% of family law cases were resolved through public mediation. Yet, while trending positively, public mediation services have the lowest overall satisfaction scoring with 8 out of 10, compared to 8.9 for arbitration and 9.4 for justice of the peace (DGJP, 2018b). Stakeholders also highlighted the importance of providing adequate resources and facilities and enhancing the speed of mediation (DGJP, 2018b). Further efforts to increase the take-up of mediation43 (DGPJ, 2018b) – possibly through strengthening incentives and communication (e.g. through greater court intervention) and expanding to other areas (e.g. commercial mediation) – would be beneficial in order to reach its full potential. Collecting data from private mediation systems would also allow mapping the extent of the popularity of this mechanism.
Justices of the peace – Twenty-five justices of the peace have jurisdiction for small civil claims (up to EUR 15 000) excluding family, probate and labour matters. They can resort to mediation, conciliation or a simplified court hearing. The decision is appealable in the formal court system if the value exceeds EUR 2 500. Persons may now resort to mediation (except in class actions) and preliminary injunctions are now available.44 Justices of the peace qualify through a course of conflict mediation recognised by the Ministry of Justice or given by a training entity certified by the DGPJ. The use of the peace courts is subject to a one-time fee of EUR 70 to be borne by the unsuccessful party and the judge may also decide to divide this amount between parties. The use and success of mediation under this mechanism are incentivised under an agreement with the fee of EUR 50, divided between parties.
Such a mix of judicial and out-of-court services is the result of innovative public-public partnership between the justice sector and local authorities (with shared funding). This mechanism for resolving disputes is increasingly popular in Portugal, although remains limited in use (DGPJ, 2018c; UK Law Review, 2018).45 Between 2001 and 2014, approximately 82 500 claims were heard. There is also scope to strengthen this mechanism by ensuring that there is no overlap with other jurisdictions, greater efficiency (Figure 2.3) and merit-based decision-making (UK Law Review, 2018).46
Figure 2.3. Justice of peace cases compared to court cases
Source: OECD (2019), OECD Economic Surveys: Portugal 2019, https://doi.org/10.1787/eco_surveys-prt-2019-en.
Since 2013 the Directorate-General for Justice Policy of Portugal overlooks the Barometers of Quality of Arbitration Centres, the Peace Courts and Public Mediation Systems (with the emphasis on procedural fairness, clarity and timeliness), assessing the satisfaction of their users,47 and is based on the CEPEJ Handbook for Conducting Satisfaction Surveys. Between 2013 and 2018, user satisfaction has slightly increased and has been stable since 2016, showing continuity in the quality of the public services (Figure 2.4).
Figure 2.4. Public ADR satisfaction increased between 2013 and 2018
Note: Index: 0-10.
Source: DGPJ (2018a), Barometers of Quality of Arbitration Centres.
Developing a people-centred justice service ecosystem that reflects OECD criteria implies the requirement of countries to find ways to integrate ADR along with other resolution processes in a coherent and holistic justice sector vision while maintaining their empowerment (Figure 2.5). When centring service infrastructure and delivery on people’s needs, countries can help parties bring their dispute to the right forum. There is a strong potential to facilitate the development of such an ecosystem in Portugal with ADR +, the forthcoming case management platform. This initiative will aim to provide a common stage for justices of the peace in consumer dispute arbitration centres and public mediation systems. The goal is to be interoperable with the new European platform ODR (European Platform for Online Dispute Resolution) and to facilitate access to case information by parties. The next logical step could be to deepen the understanding of the legal needs of citizens, which could help to plan a strategic delivery of ADR across territories.
To strengthen the availability of data on the different mechanisms, it would be important to develop common data management protocols, among others, in order to bridge separate public and private systems for arbitration and mediation. There is also scope to leverage technology and understanding of legal needs in order to ensure geographic accessibility of different ADR mechanisms. In this context, Portugal is continuously looking to adjust and ensure the sustainability of its ADR services network through working groups. In addition, it is developing a new case management platform RaL + (ADR +), which will aim to provide a common platform for justices of the peace in consumer dispute arbitration centres and public mediation systems. This platform will be interoperable with the new European platform ODR (European platform for online dispute resolution). Parties will also have facilitated access to their case information.
Figure 2.5. Integrating ADR in a continuum of legal and justice services
Source: Adapted from Attorney-General’s Department of Australia (2009), A Strategic Framework for Access to Justice in the Federal Civil Justice System, A Guide for Future Action, Access to Justice Taskforce, https://www.ag.gov.au/LegalSystem/Documents/A%20Strategic%20Framework%20for%20Access%20to%20Justice%20in%20the%20Federal%20Civil%20Justice%20System.pdf.
Innovation for business-friendly justice
To support the improvement of the business climate, Portugal has developed a framework (composed of legislation, innovative technology and procedures) that aims to support Portuguese companies in reinforcing their equity and reducing their levels of indebtedness through various initiatives. For example, in response to the post-crisis rise in insolvency proceedings, Portugal revised the Insolvency Code. In particular, it introduced fast-track approval procedures restructuring plans, such as the Special Revitalisation Process (PER) that seeks to support borrowers in negotiating recovery plans with creditors in case of imminent insolvency. The latter procedure was amended again in 2018, by limiting the availability of the procedure for entrepreneurial activities and viable firms, while creating more simplified special procedures for individuals (OECD, 2019).
Other innovative procedures contemplate extrajudicial procedures such as, for instance, the out-of-court regime for firm restructuring (RERE).48 These types of extrajudicial procedures have the potential to alleviate the workload within courts and making procedures shorter, more consensual and effective, whilst courts dedicate their resources and time to despatch more complex affairs.
Other initiatives include:
Out-of-court repossession of the collateral (commercial pledge) legal framework.49
Legal regime for debt to equity swap, including giving the creditors a chance to save companies with or without the equity holders agreement.50
An early warning regime, such as early warning tool of financial self-diagnosis for companies developed by the Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation.51
Electronic proceedings, which are already in force and applicable to insolvency procedures.
While it will take time to see the full impacts of these measures, some of the key results to date include the reduction of pendency in cases linked to businesses as part of the PER process (Figure 2.6). Notably, in accordance with the 2019 OECD Economic Survey, the PER has improved Portugal’s firm restructuring regime, as also reflected in World Bank’s Doing Business indicators as well as the OECD Insolvency Indicators (Adalet McGowan, Andrews and Millot, 2017). It has contributed to approximately 3 000 cases of firm restructuring over the past 3 years (OECD, 2019). In addition, the 2019 OECD Economic Survey stressed the need for financially attractive alternative dispute resolution schemes for firm liquidation. Such schemes could facilitate co‑ordination among creditors, enhance co‑operation among parties, help successful liquidation of non-viable firms and reduce costs related to business failure (OECD, 2019).
Figure 2.6. Special revitalisation procedures in the courts of 1st instance, 3rd quarter
Source: DGPJ (2019), Quarterly Statistical Highlight 60, Quarterly statistics on insolvency cases, on special revitalization procedures and on special procedures for payment agreement (2007-2018).
Enforcement cases
To strengthen enforcement procedures, the Justiça + Próxima programme has integrated a range of measures, including the:
Development of new features for court clerks to electronically access relevant information on the identification of the debtor and his/her assets.
Extension of these features to enforcement agents.
Implementation of a system to identify if an enforcement case is waiting for an act of the court registry or of the judge.
These measures are introduced to reinforce the implementation of reform waves over the past two decades. The first set of reforms was the introduction of enforcement agents in 2002/03.52 Second is the effort to simplify the enforcement procedure, reduce the intervention of the judge and registrars and enhance the competencies of enforcement agents.53 It also aimed to promote efficient enforcement procedures, mainly by foreseeing an electronic procedure and allowing enforcement agents to develop a number of activities without judicial consent (such as direct consultation of social security and registry office databases). The third wave was introduced by the new 2013 Civil Procedure Code, which brought five major changes, including:
Reducing the range of enforceable titles. Over the years, procedural reforms have gradually increased the number of enforceable titles, enabling the creditor to start an enforcement procedure without first going through a declarative procedure. The increase of the number of enforceable titles has shifted the courts’ backlog from declarative procedures to enforcement procedures, increasing the number of declarative incidents grafted in the enforcement procedure. With the 2013 reform, non-authenticated documents (namely debt confessions and other documents signed by the debtor that acknowledge the existence of a pecuniary obligation) ceased to be considered as enforceable titles and now have to go through a payment order procedure or a civil action.
Creating two types of procedures depending on the type of enforceable title (a faster one, for the more “reliable” enforceable titles, such as court decisions, and another that requires the notification of the debtor prior to the seizure of his/her assets). This modification was intended to guarantee greater certainty and safety in the procedure, introducing stronger control, both by the judge and by the debtor.
Moving some of the enforcement agents’ competencies to the judiciary. For example, in ordinary procedures, the court registry is responsible for rejecting the enforcement claim when it does not fulfil the formal requirements. Decisions on the modification of the assets to be seized or on the anticipated sale of seized assets are now under the judge’s jurisdiction, for example.
Enforcing direct electronic seizure of a debtor’s bank accounts via the enforcement agent or bailiff (rendering a prior judicial decision unnecessary).
Limiting the possibility of other creditors being able claim their credits in a pending enforcement proceeding, thus reducing pending incidents in the enforcement procedure.
Finally, another measure was taken to reduce the backlog in enforcement courts: enforcement cases can also be closed if an enforcement agent does not identify sizeable assets of the debtor within three months. Nonetheless, such proceedings can be renewed whenever the creditor is able to find new assets. The number of pending cases was also reduced as a result of the formal closure of court cases, which were linked to a periodic income. In these cases, enforcement agents award outstanding amounts to the creditors and close the court case, which can also be reopened in case of non-payment.
References
Aavik, M. et al (2018), Report: Evaluation of the Latvian Judicial System on the Basis of the Methodology and Tools Developed by the CEPEJ, CEPEJ, www.ta.gov.lv/UserFiles/Faili/CEPEJ_Evaluation_Report_Latvia_Final_En.pdf.
Acland-Hood, S. (2018), “Modernising the Courts and Tribunals Service”, Presentation, HM Courts and Tribunals Service, https://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/sites/laws/files/ucl_foj_01_03_acland-hood.pdf.
Adalet McGowan, M., D. Andrews and V. Millot (2017), “Insolvency regimes, zombie firms and capital reallocation”, OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 1399, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5a16beda-en.
Attorney-General’s Department of Australia (2009), A Strategic Framework for Access to Justice in the Federal Civil Justice System, A Guide for Future Action, Access to Justice Taskforce, https://www.ag.gov.au/LegalSystem/Documents/A%20Strategic%20Framework%20for%20Access%20to%20Justice%20in%20the%20Federal%20Civil%20Justice%20System.pdf.
British Columbia Legal Services Society (2016), MyLawBC, http://factum.mylawbc.com/blog.
Canadian Ministry of Justice (2016), Specialized Courts Strategy, Government of British Columbia, https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/about-bc-justice-system/justice-reform-initiatives/specialized-courts-strategy.pdf.
CEPEJ (2018), “European judicial systems – Efficiency and quality of justice”, CEPEJ Studies, No. 26. European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice, Council of Europe.
CEPEJ (2013), CEPEJ Revised Guidelines on the Creation of Judicial Maps, CEPEJ(2013)7Rev1, https://rm.coe.int/1680748151.
Civil Resolution Tribunal (2019), Welcome to the Civil Resolution Tribunal, http://civilresolutionbc.ca.
Committee for Justice (2016), “Report on justice in the 21st century: Innovative approaches for the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland”, Northern Ireland Assembly, Report NIA 313/11-16, www.niassembly.gov.uk/globalassets/documents/justice-2011-2016/copy-of-the-justice-in-the-21st-century-report-with-appendices.pdf.
Controller and Auditor General (2017), Ministry of Justice: Modernising Court Services, New Zealand Government, https://www.oag.govt.nz/2017/courts/docs/courts.pdf.
Correia, P.M.A.R. and Videira, S.A. (2016), “Troika's Portuguese Ministry of Justice Experiment, Part II: Continued positive results for civil enforcement actions in Troika's aftermath”, in International Journal for Court Administration, Vol. 8(1), pp. 20-31, http://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.215.
Della Chiesa, M. (2012), Comparative Study of the Reforms of the Judicial Maps in Europe, Sciences Po Strasbourg Consulting, Strasbourg, https://rm.coe.int/comparative-study-of-the-reforms-of-the-judicial-maps-in-europe/168078c53a.
DGPJ (2019), Quarterly Statistical Highlight 60, Quarterly statistics on insolvency cases, on special revitalization procedures and on special procedures for payment agreement (2007-2018), https://www.dgpj.mj.pt/sections/siej_en/statistical-highlights/annexes/quarterly-statistics-on6002/downloadFile/attachedFile_f0/Dest60__Insolvencies_20190206.pdf?nocache=1549536185.61.
DGPJ (2018a), Barometers of Quality of Arbitration Centres.
DGPJ (2018b), Barometers of Quality of Public Mediation.
DGPJ (2018c), Barometers of Quality of Justice of Peace.
Gomes, C. and P. Fernando (2017), Justiça e Eficiência - O Caso dos Tribunais Administrativos e Fiscais, Coimbra, http://opj.ces.uc.pt/site/novo/ficheiros/justica_adm/relatorio_justica_e_eficiencia_taf_23_05_2017.pdf.
Gouveia, M.F., J. Pinto-Ferreira and M. Teixeira (2017), “Evolução do processo civil: Democratização, celeridade e gestão processual”, in M. de L. Rodrigues et al. (eds.), 40 Anos de Políticas de Justiça em Portugal, Almedina, Coimbra, pp. 181-97.
Government of Alberta (2019), Dispute Resolution Officer Program, www.alberta.ca/dispute-resolution-officer-program.aspx.
Government of Portugal (2018), 2020 Strategy for Digital Transformation in Public Administration, https://tic.gov.pt/documents/2018/CTIC_TIC2020_Estrategia_TIC.pdf.
Government of the United Kingdom (2018a), The HMCTS Reform Programme, HM Courts and Tribunals Service, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-hmcts-reform-programme.
Government of the United Kingdom (2018b), HMCTS Reform Programme Projects Explained, HM Courts and Tribunals Service, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/hmcts-reform-programme-projects-explained.
Government of the United Kingdom (2018c), “Quicker way to resolve claim disputes launched online”, www.gov.uk/government/news/quicker-way-to-resolve-claim-disputes-launched-online.
Haukeland Fredriksen, H. and M. Strandberg (2016), “Is e-justice reform of Norwegian civil procedure finally happening?”, Oslo Law Review, Volume 3, www.idunn.no/oslo_law_review/2016/02/is_e‑justice_reform_of_norwegian_civil_procedure_finally_ha.
ICJ (2007), International Principles on the Independence and Accountability of Judges, Lawyers and Prosecutors, Practitioners Guide No. 1, International Commission of Jurists, https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/International-Principles-on-the-Independence-and-Accountability-of-Judges-Lawyers-and-Procecutors-No.1-Practitioners-Guide-2009-Eng.pdf.LUT University (n.d.), “Inventory of caseflow management practices in European civil proceedings: Appendix 1 for the caseflow management handbook”, Working Paper, LUT University, www.lut.fi/documents/27578/419707/Inventory+of+caseflow+management+practices.pdf/51893738-f8fc-4c19-a6d5-28fa5e756347 (accessed 18 February 2019).
Ministry of Justice of Portugal (2017), Court Quality Framework Design Handbook.
Ministry of Justice of Portugal (2016), Justiça + Próxima – Plano de Modernizacão e Tecnologia, Republica Portuguesa.
Ministry of Justice of Portugal (n.d.), Online Criminal Register, https://registocriminal.justica.gov.pt.
Morse, A. (2018), “Early progress in transforming courts and tribunals”, National Audit Office, https://www.nao.org.uk/press-release/early-progress-in-transforming-courts-and-tribunals/.
My Law BC (2019), Separation, Divorce and Family Matters, https://mylawbc.com/.
New Zealand Ministry of Justice (2018a), Modernising Courts and Tribunals, New Zealand Government, https://www.justice.govt.nz/about/about-us/our-strategy/modernising-courts-and-tribunals/.
New Zealand Ministry of Justice (2018b), Statement of Intent, New Zealand Government, https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Publications/Ministry-of-Justice-statement-of-intent-2017-to-2022.pdf.
OECD (2019), OECD Economic Surveys: Portugal 2019, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/eco_surveys-prt-2019-en.
Otis, K. et al. (2017), Teleservices: Happening Now!, Centre for Court Innovation, New York, www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Teleservices.pdf.
Palumbo, G. et al. (2013), “Judicial Performance and its Determinants: A Cross-Country Perspective”, OECD Economic Policy Papers, No. 5, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5k44x00md5g8-en.
Singapore Mediation Centre (2019), Our Achievements, www.mediation.com.sg/about-us/.
Singapore State Courts (2018a), Overview of Alternative Dispute Resolution, www.statecourts.gov.sg/cws/Mediation_ADR/Pages/Overview-of-Alternative-Dispute-Resolution.aspx.
Singapore State Courts (2018b), Overview of State Courts Centre for Dispute Resolution, www.statecourts.gov.sg/cws/Mediation_ADR/Pages/Overview-of-State-Courts-Centre-for-Dispute-Resolution.aspx.
Singapore State Courts (2018c), Mediation/Counselling, https://www.familyjusticecourts.gov.sg/Common/Pages/MediationCounselling.aspx.
Sundaresh, M. (2017), Advancing Justice: Expanding the Possibilities, Singapore State Courts Annual Report, Singapore State Courts, Singapore, https://www.statecourts.gov.sg/cws/Resources/Documents/OJAR_StateCourts_AR_A4_V4.pdf.
Taskforce on Justice (2019), Innovating Justice: Needed and Possible, Report of the Innovation Working Group of the Task Force on Justice, www.hiil.org/news/innovating-justice-needed-and-possible-report-of-the-innovation-working-group-of-the-task-force-on-justice.
UK Law Review (2018), The Dispute Resolution Review - Edition 10, Portugal, https://thelawreviews.co.uk/chapter/1166493/portugal.
Wemans, L. and Pereira M.C (2017), "Productivity in civil justice in Portugal: A crucial issue in a congested system," Economic Bulletin and Financial Stability Report Articles and Banco de Portugal Economic Studies, Banco de Portugal, Economics and Research Department.
Wiertz-Wezenbeck, C. et al. (eds.) (2014), Judicial Reform in the Netherlands, Staat der Nederlanden, The Hague, www.rechtspraak.nl/SiteCollectionDocuments/judicial-refrom-in-the-Netherlands-2014.pdf.
Notes
← 1. Law no. 52/2008 of 28 August (Lei de Organização e Funcionamento dos Tribunais Judiciais).
← 2. Law no. 41/2013 of 26 June.
← 3. Law no. 62/2013 of 26 August.
← 4. The Civil Procedure Code has already been amended 6 times: Law no. 122/2015 of 1st September; Law no. 40-A/2016 of 22 December; Law no. 8/2017 of 3 March; Decree-Law no. 68/2017 of 16 June; Law no. 114/2017 of 29 December; Law no. 49/2018 of 14 August.
← 5. See Correia and Videira (2016) for a dissenting opinion.
← 6. “The principle of the natural judge constitutes a fundamental guarantee of the right to a fair trial. This principle means that no one can be tried other than by an ordinary, pre-established, competent tribunal or judge”. See ICJ (2007).
← 7. The need to further develop and extend the current system was identified in a study conducted by the DGPJ in 2015. A preliminary draft legislation was developed by the working group and submitted to parliament.
← 8. For more information on the Simplex+ programme: https://www.simplex.gov.pt/.
← 9. 175 measures approved; 83 concluded; 56 are under development.
← 10. The criminal policy goals, priorities and guidelines for the biennium 2017-19 are established under Law no. 96/2017 of 23 August.
← 11. For more information see Simplex+ programme: https://www.simplex.gov.pt/.
← 13. See evaluation of the judicial map at: https://medidasjustica.portugal.gov.pt/avaliacao-do-mapa-judiciario/.
← 14. The judicial map was readjusted in January 2017 at https://medidasjustica.portugal.gov.pt/ajustamentos-ao-mapa-judiciario/.
← 15. See the list of new videoconferencing and printing equipment for the courts at https://medidasjustica.portugal.gov.pt/novos‑equipamentos‑de‑videoconferencia/ and https://medidasjustica.portugal.gov.pt/novos-equipamentos-de-impressao-para-os-tribunais/.
← 16. Law no. 40-A/2016 of 20 December. Tribunal+ also included 44 interventions in court premises (25 completed, 19 ongoing).
← 17. See multi‑year strategic plan for the redeployment of the courts network at: https://medidasjustica.portugal.gov.pt/plano-estrategico-plurianual-de-requalificacao-e-modernizacao-da-rede-de-tribunais/; www.portugal.gov.pt/pt/gc21/comunicacao/documento?i=plano-estrategico-plurianual-de-requalificacao-e-modernizacao-da-rede-de-tribunais-2018-2028.
← 18. See Article 45(1), Law no. 21/85 of 30 July.
← 19. Deliberation 756/2018 of the High Council for Judicial Courts regulates on the principles, criteria, requirements and procedure to ensure the reallocation of judges or cases. Any such measures request the consent of the affected judge. The presiding judge must first hear the affected judges and give their consent to the measure. The proposal of application of the measure by the presiding judge to the High Council must indicate the statistical data or other circumstances that justify the measure, the reasons for choosing such measure and the possible alternative measures, the foreseeable duration of the measure, the goals to be achieved with the measure and the indicators to be used for its final evaluation, and the necessary reorganisation of the services to implement the measure. The High Council has the final ruling.
← 20. The law sets limits to the establishment of those procedural objectives for judicial demarcations: they cannot affect in any way judicial decisions on the cases to be adjudicated, neither in matters of substance (merit of the case) nor in terms of the choice of the legally better-suited judicial procedure (procedural fairness).
← 21. See the Statute of Judicial Magistrates and the Regulation on the Judicial Inspection of the High Council of the Judiciary.
← 22. In accordance with Law no. 62/2013; www.csm.org.pt/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Novo-Regulamento-dos-Servi%C3%A7os-de-Inspe%C3%A7%C3%A3o-do-Conselho-Superior-da-Magistratura.pdf.
← 23. Law no. 15/2001 of 5 June; Administrative and Fiscal Courts Statute (Estatuto dos Tribunais Administrativos e Fiscais, ETAF), by Law no. 13/2002 of 19 February; Administrative Procedure Code (Código de Processo dos Tribunais Administrativos, CPTA), by Law no. 15/2002 of 22 February.
← 24. Decree-law 214-G/2015 of 2 October.
← 25. Ordinance no. 2011/2017 of 17 July.
← 26. Ordinance no. 288/2017 of 28 September.
← 27. Ordinance no. 289/2017 of 28 September.
← 28. Ordinance no. 178/2017 of 30 May.
← 29. Ordinance no. 267/2018 of 20 September.
← 30. Law no. 114/2019 of 12 September.
← 31. Law no. 118/2019 of 17 September.
← 32. Decree-Law no. 81/2018 of 15 October.
← 33. Special teams composed of judges were created to deal with cases pending in administrative and fiscal courts. Also, special incentives (exempting parties from court fees) in withdrawal of cases or in diversion to arbitration were implemented.
← 34. Decree-law no. 86/2018 of 29 October.
← 35. Ordinance no. 341/2019 of 1 October.
← 36. Law no. 27/2019 of 28 March.
← 38. 35 arbitration centres are authorised by the Ministry of Justice: 10 are supported directly by the ministry and 25 are private.
← 39. It was first financially supported by the state. Since 2014 the level of public support has gradually decreased and, in 2017, the centre became privately run.
← 40. The 2013 Law on mediation sets out general principles applicable regardless of the entity conducting the mediation (public or private) or the subject matter.
← 41. The mediator must hold a mediation certificate issued by an accredited institution or have attended a specific course recognised by the Ministry of Justice/DGPJ. In addition, each public mediation system framework establishes the requirements to become a mediator. These requirements include civil and political capacity, minimum age, professional experience or a university degree, specific training in mediation and fluency in the Portuguese language. Also, the mediator can only integrate the public mediation systems, once s/he is admitted on a public recruitment procedure.
← 42. Law no. 29/2013 of 19 April; article 9.º/1 c.
← 43. 434 cases being resolved through public mediation in 2017.
← 44. As stated in Law no. 78/2001 of 13 July, article 41.º-A, within the limits of the possible material scope of the jurisdiction, whenever someone shows concern that others may cause serious injury or difficulties in claiming of their right, they may apply to the competent justice of the peace court for a preventive or conservatory measure specifically aiming to enforce rights .
← 45. Law no. 78/2001 of 13 July (as amended by Law no. 54/2013 of 31 July).
← 46. Law no. 78/2001 of 13 July (as amended by Law no. 54/2013 of 31 July).
← 47. See report on monitoring of the means of alternative dispute resolution at: https://dgpj.justica.gov.pt/Portals/31/Estudos AIN DGPJ/Relatorio_Satisfacao_Meios_RAL_2018.pdf.
← 48. Law no. 8/2018 of 2 March.
← 49. Decree-law no. 75/2017 of 26 August.
← 50. Law no. 7/2018 of 2 March.
← 51. Decree-law no. 47/2019 of 11 April.
← 52. Law no. 23/2002 of 21 August, and Decree-law no. 38/2003 of 8 March.
← 53. The second one in 2008, with the approval of Law no. 18/2008 of 12 April, and Decree-law no. 226/2008 of 20 November.