Arina Hayrapetyan
Democratic Governance
Court Administration and Management in Armenia
July, 2005
 
 
 
The work and advocacy plan is based on the above structure, where the project objectives are linked with the sources and methods to be used, then with the project stakeholders and finally with the outputs.
 
Project Objectives
 
The primary objective of the project is to assess the current situation of the judicial service with an emphasis on the court administration and personnel management and to provide specific policy recommendations in these areas.
 
The project also aims to measure the degree of satisfaction with the courts' ease of accessibility and performance through conducting a survey among court users and court employees.
 
Sources and Methods
 
Phase I. Review and Analysis
Phase II. Survey
Phase III. Developing Recommendations
Phase IV. Court guide development
 
I. - An assessment of court administration and management policies and practices in selected courts will be performed by reviewing relevant laws, sub-legislation, instructions and directives, charters and internal rules. Necessary acts will be obtained through the on-line legal database at www.parliament.am, IRTEK database, the “Official Bulletin” published by the Government; other required documents will be taken from the identified courts. The documentary research will be combined with personal interviews and consultations with respective judges, court officials, representatives of the Ministry of Justice, law schools, Council of Courts Chairmen, donors and citizens as court users.
 
 - The court administration efforts, experience and best practices of Slovenia, Bulgaria, Estonia and Hungary will be researched for the purposes of comparative analysis and recommendations development. Information and data will be obtained primarily from online resources, including legal databases, reports of donor organizations such as USAID, World Bank, GTZ, EU monitoring reports, etc.
 
II. Public surveys among court users and court employees will be conducted to measure the degree of satisfaction with the courts' ease of accessibility and performance. The survey findings will serve as a tool to measure the performance of courts and identify measures to be taken for administrative improvements such as enhancing the court management, user-friendliness and service provision from the lessons of those who have experienced the courts in action. Therefore, the surveys will give an opportunity for public input as a result of which major concerns will be isolated and addressed while drafting policy recommendations.
 
III. Policy recommendations with their analyses, justification and implications will be formulated. Recommendations will be discussed with responsible staff in courts, officials directly involved in policy-making processes, the Ministry of Justice representatives as well as public administration and legal experts from academia.
 
IV. Plain language informational booklet to guide court users and public in general to more easily navigate the court procedures and processes will be developed. The booklet will be published in local language and widely distributed.  
 
Internal and External Stakeholders
 

1. The primary internal stakeholders are:

• selected courts to include a court of first instance, appeals court, economic court and court of cassation
• Council of Courts Chairmen –judicial administration body
• Judicial Training Center
• Ministry of Justice
  

 

2. Media

 
Articles in native language will be published in local newspapers and will be aimed at increasing citizen awareness and obtaining public’s and policy makers’ “buy in” for the proposed changes. The articles will be printed at various stages of the project implementation.
 

3. External stakeholders are primarily considered to include donor organizations active in the field of democratic governance, public administration, judicial and legal reforms and citizens, as court users.

 
Cooperation with donor community will focus on providing and discussing the research outcomes and the policy recommendations and identifying current and planned projects in the relevant areas that can potentially support the implementation of recommended actions. Other activities with the donor-funded projects will include participation at workshop and seminars on the issues of judiciary reforms, making presentations and conducting training sessions to the judicial and public servants.
 
Citizens and other court users will be the direct beneficiary of the court guide, which will provide information and basic instructions on court services and procedures. This will improve both the general understanding of court operations and the access to courts.
 

4. OSI/Soros Foundation

 

• Local Government and Public Sector Reform Initiative

The Public Policy Centers Initiative covers CEE & NIS regions. The area of concentration is legal reforms, public sector management and reforms, etc with the mission of supporting and disseminating important policy studies which should have a significant impact on reform. Thus, it will be beneficial to publish the final policy paper in the “Country Profile” section, which, at present, is empty for Armenia. It will be also important to be included in the Experts Database for the country in reference to contribute to the relevant policy debates and dialogues.  

• Policy Documentation Center

This library of policy papers ensures to facilitate debate on relevant policy issues. Access to the Center’s resources will be an invaluable asset for the research implementation. Moreover, posting final deliverable of the IPF research in the PDC website (under relevant country sections) will contribute to both the existing online library of the Center and wider dissemination of the research paper and recommendations.

• IPF Alumni

Ana Pavlova-Daneva, Macedonia (2004-05). Establishing an administrative judiciary in the Republic of Macedonia: Ideas and prospects.
Renata Treneska-Deskoska, Macedonia (2003-04). The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Macedonia: Proposals for legal and administrative reforms.

 
 
Tangible Outcomes
 

1. Expert advice in drafting new legislation on judicial service or amending existing laws;
2. A 20-page research paper and a policy recommendations package with an action plan, which will be distributed among relevant state authorities, NGOs, academic circles, donor organizations and made available at a web site for a wider use by interested public. The research findings and recommendations will also be presented and discussed at the “Public Administration” course with the social sciences students of the Yerevan State Linguistic University;
3. Publication of a user-friendly informational court guide;
4. Articles in native language published in local newspapers.