Effective case management is at the heart of judicial administration. Unfortunately, too often courts around the world have difficulty achieving and maintaining the timely disposition of cases.  The results are case backlogs which can be very hard to eliminate.  Fortunately, there is a new resource that can be used to help courts reduce and eliminate their case backlogs.  In June the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) announced the adoption of a Backlog Reduction Tool [The CEPEJ adopts its “Backlog reduction tool”: a new roadmap for identifying and addressing structural delays in court proceedings – Human Rights and Rule of Law (coe.int)] that can benefit every court.

The CEPEJ’s announcement of the new tool does a nice job of explaining what is meant by case backlogs, and why it is important to eliminate them: 

The notion “Backlog” refers to pending cases at the court concerned which have not been resolved within an established timeframe. This accumulation of pending cases stems from various issues, such as an inadequate legal framework, insufficient court resources to deal with incoming cases, shortcomings in case management practices etc. This situation is problematic because it leads to substantial delays in court cases, increases the cost of legal proceedings, contributes to legal uncertainty and has a negative impact on public perception of and confidence in judicial systems. 

There are four strategic phases in the CEPEJ backlog reduction methodology [rm.coe.int/cepej-2023-9-backlog-reduction-tool-en/1680aba0a4]:

  1. The identification of the causes of backlogs through a quantitative and qualitative analysis, which combines together statistical data related to court cases (for example, number of incoming/resolved/pending/backlog cases, age of pending cases, length of proceedings, number of judges etc.), CEPEJ efficiency indicators (such as Clearance Rate and Disposition Time) and legal and operational analysis (for example, the regulatory framework and rules of procedure, the availability and the effective use of resources,  court practices and internal organization of court’s work).
  • The development of a concrete and goal-oriented strategy, which involves defining targets at different levels (at the level of judges, at the level of courts, at the level of the judicial system as a whole) and adopting certain measures corresponding to the causes of the problem identified in the first stage (measures that can address legislative framework, organisation of judicial systems, legal training, resource allocation, digitalisation of judicial systems, interaction with justice actors, court management, and case management).
  • Establishing a regular monitoring mechanisms to track the fulfilment of the targets.  Monitoring goes hand-in-hand with implementation of the strategy, with a focus on the quality, timeliness, and relevance of various backlog reduction activities for achieving the desired outcomes.
  • Ensuring sustainability to avoid recurrence of the backlogs in the future. This last step involves defining directions for future effective performance of judicial systems based on lessons learned, analysis of anticipated case-flow and future trends.

I particularly like the final emphasis on ensuring sustainability – too often we achieve project results and then fail to keep the momentum going.

The full CEPEJ backlog reduction report [found at rm.coe.int/cepej-2023-9-backlog-reduction-tool-en/1680aba0a4] provides detailed guidance, including useful data analysis report templates and checklists.  The report is comprehensive, clear, and practical – a very nice addition to existing caseflow management resources.

Three of my resource favorites are:

In addition, more general resources on organizational analysis and performance measurement can be found at:

It is worth repeating – effective case management is at the heart of judicial administration. It is wonderful resources such as the new CEPEJ Backlog Reduction Tool are available to help every court process and adjudicate their cases timely and efficiently.

Unknown's avatar

Published by Norman Meyer

After 38 years as a trial court administrator in the state and federal courts in the U.S., Norman continues to write, teach, and otherwise participate in judicial administration activities world-wide. In particular, he is active in the International Association for Court Administration (IACA) as a past Regional Vice President and Advisory Board member, in the National Association for Court Management (NACM) as a Past President (having received NACM's Award of Merit), and as an Associate of the Justice Speakers Institute. Norman has extensive experience working on international Rule of Law projects, particularly in the Russian Federation, Serbia, Ukraine, Moldova, and Albania. Norman is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of New Mexico (Political Science and Russian Studies), and he received the Master of Science in Judicial Administration from the University of Denver College of Law.

Leave a comment