Specific Objective 2.5
“Efficient access to justice ensured through legal aid, alternative dispute resolution and appropriate court fees.”
Improving access to the justice system has been one of the main goals of the reform. In order for this access to be as effective as possible for the citizens, ‘investments’ must be made in many aspects. In terms of how it is formulated, this Objective focuses on three areas: (i) legal aid; (ii) alternative dispute resolution; and (iii) setting appropriate court fees. All three of these aspects, though not the only ones, are very important to ensure access to justice.
The right to legal aid provides effective access to justice for those who have insufficient financial resources to cover the costs of litigation, such as court fees or legal representation costs.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) refers to dispute resolution procedures – such as mediation and arbitration – that provide out-of-court dispute resolution. Applying them improves the efficiency of justice, reducing the workload of the courts and providing individuals with an opportunity to resolve disputes more quickly and at a lower financial and social cost.
Court fees need to be well-thought in order to assist in the efficient administration of justice. They, on the one hand, should not burden the parties with excessive costs that prevent them from going to court for violations of rights, and, on the other, should cover administrative costs and prevent parties who abuse the right to go to court.
This Objective is in line with Policy Goal 2, one of the areas of which is to strengthen access to justice in accordance with constitutional, legal and European standards. Objective 2.5 also follows the objectives of SNDI. Specifically, Sub-objective 3/b: “Improving access to the justice system”, was part of Objective 3 of CJS I: “Improving the functioning of the judicial system by strengthening efficiency, transparency and access to court in line with European standards.”
Objective 2.5 also responds to the current needs of society. The legal aid system is in a consolidation phase. After the development of the legal framework and the increase of the network of legal aid delivery centers, the challenge remains to raise the awareness of the citizens on the prerequisites to benefit from it and the increase of the number of those who receive free primary and secondary legal aid.
Alternative dispute resolutions, despite the assistance they could provide to citizens and the judiciary, remain ineffective and, in addition to raising awareness, an analysis of the current legal framework should be conducted, highlighting weaknesses as well as bringing it in line with successful models, which avoid these problems and are adapted to the Albanian reality.
Also, court fees need to be reviewed, taking into account the organization of the system based on the new judicial map.
This objective materializes in 3 results[1]. These results are complete and in line with Objective 2.5. We suggest that Outcome 2.5.2 be reworded in the form of an outcome, as it has more of the nature of a comprehensive measure. For example, it could be formulated: “Effective mechanisms for alternative dispute resolution“. The same remark applies to Outcome 2.5.3. Even this outcome must be reworded in accordance with the nature of an outcome. E.g., “Well-thought fees that maximize access to justice, with a focus on vulnerable groups.” The way this outcome is written, it provides for fee increases, prejudging the outcome of an in-depth analysis of the charging system, which in itself must find a healthy balance between access to justice, administrative costs of the process, and the accurate identification of categories that are excluded from judicial service fees.
This analysis should also take into account the organization and distribution made according to the new judicial map. Referring to the measures envisaged for this objective, we think that among the participating institutions should also be the National Chamber of Advocacy (for the aspect regarding the training of lawyers), the School of Magistrates and the Judiciary (for the aspect of awareness-raising and continued training of judges regarding free legal aid).
Conclusion: This objective is in line with Policy Goal 2. It is clear, necessary and realistic. We suggest reviewing the terminology used for the outcomes that are intended to be achieved by meeting this objective, as well as the inclusion as one of the participating institutions of the National Chamber of Advocacy (for the aspect regarding the training of lawyers), the School of Magistrates and the Judiciary (for the aspect of awareness-raising and continued training of judges regarding free legal aid).
[1]Outcome 2.5.1: The system of primary and secondary legal aid is fully functional and provides equal access to justice for citizens throughout the country (human resources, primary legal aid offices, lawyers providing secondary legal aid; appropriate tools, technical ability, etc.). Outcome 2.5.2: Improved mechanisms for alternative dispute resolution by ADR bodies (legal changes, institutional and capacity development). Outcome 2.5.3: Court fee system (increase fees and determine fee exemptions) reviewed periodically to maximize access to court and ensure access for all vulnerable groups and establish cost recovery systems for court user parties.