Second European Forum on Access to Justice
Preliminary Forum Report, Papers and other selected materials from the Second European Forum on Access to Justice, held on 24-26 February 2005 in Budapest
The Second European Forum on Access to Justice was held on February 24-26, and brought together about two hundred legal professionals, rights advocates, representatives of international institutions and government officials from 43 countries of the world to discuss strategies for improving access to justice for the indigent. The event was organized by the Open Society Justice Initiative and the Public Interest Law Initiative with financial support from the European Union, the Safety, Security and Access to Justice Programme in the Balkans; the Open Society Institute, and the Ford Foundation.
The Forum discussions focused on a range of topics, including government and nongovernmental initiatives to reform legal aid systems, the role of paralegals in improving access to justice, and methods for researching legal aid. The meeting followed a First European Forum on Access to Justice held in Budapest in December 2002, which was primarily aimed at raising awareness for the need to reform legal aid systems in Central and Eastern European countries. The second Forum provided a basis for discussing and sharing experience of problems encountered in implementing reforms, and possible solutions, both in Europe and beyond.
The Forum opened with an overview of the Council of Europe’s work in promoting access to justice and a review of recent developments in European Court on Human Rights jurisprudence. The Hague European Council of November 2004 confirmed that Member States want to see a measure like the proposed “Framework Decision on Certain Procedural Rights in Criminal Proceedings” throughout the European Union. However, the final text has not yet been agreed. The need to adopt at least these minimum standards, and to encourage even higher standards, was discussed at the Forum.
One key area of debate was legal aid reform to bring justice closer to people in need. During the last two years, a number of European countries, in particular in Central and Eastern Europe, have undertaken reforms to address the needs of the poor and indigent in the quality and efficiency of legal services provided by the state. In January 2005, the Lithuanian Parliament adopted a new Law on Legal Aid, amending a 2000 law, intended to improve the delivery and accessibility of legal aid by creating a new management institution, instituting full-time legal aid attorneys alongside private attorneys, and simplifying legal aid eligibility requirements. New legal aid legislation has also been adopted in Hungary and Estonia; legal aid laws are being drafted in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Poland and Slovakia. Reforms are also contemplated in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Georgia, Moldova, and Serbia and Montenegro. Representatives from Chile, Nigeria, Kyrgyzstan, Afghanistan, and Mongolia shared their experiences of initiating and implementing legal aid reforms. In addition to an overview of developments in these countries, the Forum provided critical insight into ongoing reforms in countries with well-established and functional legal aid systems, such as England and Wales, Israel, the Netherlands, South Africa, and the United States.
A number of questions arise. Who should make decisions on legal aid policy and management and what should be the role of the state in the legal aid system? What are the potential pros and cons of particular legal aid models, and how to assess which model is best suited in a given setting? How to ensure and to control the quality of legal aid? How to organize the legal aid system in a client-centered way? These were only some of the issues raised at the panel sessions, discussed in more detail during break-out group sessions.
The Forum could not realistically provide final answers to these questions - indeed there are no universal or straightforward answers. However, one theme common to all represented systems is the struggle to maintain a reasonable balance between access, quality, and cost. There is no one-size-fits-all solution, but various considerations generally inform respective policy decisions. Participants stressed the importance for policymakers and implementers of engaging permanent reevaluation of legal aid policy decisions, in line with the changing needs and priorities of a given country. The need for coordinated efforts among various government and nongovernment stakeholders in initiating, evaluating, and implementing efforts was highlighted as key factor for successful reforms. Discussions reinforced the similarity of problems faced in legal aid systems across the globe, the value of comparative experience, and the need for locally-tailored solutions.
In addition to the use of traditional methods of legal aid delivery by lawyers, nontraditional methods of legal aid delivery, by paralegals, for example, were extensively debated. These were particularly discussed in the context of noncriminal legal aid delivery to members of rural communities or minority communities, such as Roma.
The novel idea of holistic representation was illustrated by the Bronx Defenders, an organization based in New York. Aiming to address a wide array of social, psychological, family problems of the client, rather then mere representation in criminal cases, the holistic representation model is still viewed by many as being at odds with the traditional role of the defense lawyer. At the same time, experts increasingly regard sensitivity to the wide-ranging needs of clients as a necessary adjunct for lawyers providing legal assistance to the indigent. Is it time to change the traditional perspective on criminal defense?
Forum participants repeatedly mentioned the need for accurate data on the needs and actual efficiency of legal aid delivery. One break-out group focused on the various methods for researching legal aid needs, and defining and assessing the quality and efficiency of legal aid delivery. Discussions reinforced the need for continuous research, analysis and monitoring for any sound legal aid system.
“The discussions have noticeably advanced since the First Forum,” said Zaza Namoradze, head of the Budapest office of the Open Society Justice Initiative. “In 2002, little attention was paid to policy-making, management, and legal aid service quality. Now the importance of these issues is acknowledged by stakeholders everywhere. The Forum highlighted ongoing efforts to re-establish or perfect existing legal aid systems, and to spur further discussion and new initiatives in those countries represented at the Forum, and beyond. Our hope is that the Forum provided participants with practical tools for legal aid reform, design, and implementation, to assure the quality of free legal services, and to encourage monitoring of, and research into, legal aid systems.”
We welcome your comments