View
218
Download
2
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
WORLD BANKMulti-Donor Trust Fund for Justice
Sector Support in Serbia
PERCEPTIONS OF JUDICIARY PERFORMANCE IN SERBIASurvey with citizens, enterprises, lawyers, judges, prosecutors and court administrative staff
March 2014 © 2014 Ipsos. All rights reserved. Contains Ipsos' Confidential and Proprietary information and may not bedisclosed or reproduced without the prior written consent of Ipsos.
Efficiency, quality, accessibility, fairness, integrity, costs, and reform 2009 - 2013
METHODOLOGY
3
REALIZATION:
May to June 2010 November 2013 to December 2013
December 2010 to January 2011 (judges and court administrative staff)
November 2013 of February 2014 (judges and prosecutors)
Baseline (2010) Follow up (2013)
Total number: 5237 6030
USERS
GENERAL POPULATION: 1035 representative sample 1048 representative sample
555 sample of court users 650 sample of court users
ENTERPRISE MANAGERS FROM PRIVATE SECTOR
800 representative sample 810 representative sample
200 sample of court users 210 sample of court users
LAWYERS 800 representative sample 809 representative sample
PROVIDERS
JUDGES 1075 (response rate 53%) 1533 (response rate 54%)
PROSECUTORS 201 (response rate 48%) 391 (response rate 59%)
COURT ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF 571 579
4
KEY FINDINGS
Efficiency
Quality
Accessibility
Fairness
Independence
Absence of corruption
0
50
100
1960
87
88
74
23
1347
7581
67
47
2009 2013
Providers of services – Judges and prosecutors
Users of services – Citizens, business
Percentage of positive evaluations
Efficiency
Quality
Accessibility
Fairness
Independence
Absence of corruption
0
50
100
108 5451
2413
1717
58
56
37
20
2009 2013
PERCEPTION OF JUDICIARY ON 6 DIMENSIONS, 2009-2013
5
Efficiency
Quality
Accessibility
Fairness
Independence
Absence of corruption
0
20
40
60
80
100
10854
51
2413
1717
58
56
37
20
2009 2013
6
PERCEPTION OF JUDICIARY ON 6 DIMENSIONS, 2009-2013
Percentage of positive evaluations Users of services – Citizens, business
Efficiency
Quality
Accessibility
Fairness
Independence
Absence of corruption
0
50
100
1960
87
88
74
23
1347
7581
67
47
2009 2013
Providers of services – Judges and prosecutors
Users of services – Citizens, business
Percentage of positive evaluations
Efficiency
Quality
Accessibility
Fairness
Independence
Absence of corruption
0
50
100
10854
512413
1717
58
56
37
20
2009 2013
PERCEPTION OF JUDICIARY ON 6 DIMENSIONS, 2009-2013
7
Efficiency
Quality
Accessibility
Fairness
Independence
Absence of corruption
0
50
100
567457
337
66
59
62
44
17
2009 2013
Efficiency
Quality
Accessibility
Fairness
Independence
Absence of corruption
0
50
100
1960
87
88
74
23
1347
7581
67
47
2009 2013
Providers of services – Judges and prosecutors
Percentage of positive evaluations
PERCEPTION OF JUDICIARY ON 6 DIMENSIONS, 2009-2013
8
Intermediary– Lawyers
9
EFFICIENCY OF JUDICIAL SYSTEM
PERCEPTION OF EFFICIENCY OF JUDICIAL SYSTEM, 2009-2013
Citizens
Business
JudgesProsecutors
Lawyers
0
10
20
30
40
9 10
22
16
5
1519
1610
6
2009
2013
Percentage of positive evaluations
MA1/A22: What do you think in general of the work of the judicial system in Serbia over the past few years? (%of “Positive” +”Very positive”)
10
REPORTED OPTIMAL AND ACTUAL CASELOAD – PROFESSIONAL STAFF, 2009 - 2013
11
537
509
241.1
280.53
957
1141
366
588
Judges 2009
Judges 2013
80
83
67
78
Reported optimal and actual caseload (in last 12 months), averages
% of those who have above optimal no. of cases
Prosecutors 2009
Prosecutors 2013
A1: Estimate the number of cases you worked on in last 12 months?A3: What would have been the optimal annual caseload given the conditions you worked in last 12 months?
OptimalActual
OptimalActual
JUDICIAL EFFICIENCY INDICATORS UP TO THE FIRST-INSTANCE JUDGMENT ACCORDING TO INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE RESPONDENTS - COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCE, 2009-2013
2009 2013 Difference
DURATION OF THE FIRST INSTANCE CASE (in
months)
CRIMINAL 12 15 MISDEMEANOR 6 8 CIVIL 15 16
BUSINESS 12 13 NO. OF MONTHS PRIOR
TO THE FIST APPEARANCE BEFORE THE JUDGE (in
months)
CRIMINAL 3.9 3.4 MISDEMEANOR 2.7 2.8 CIVIL 3 2.7 BUSINESS 3.3 2.4
AVERAGE NUMBER OF HEARINGS PER FIRST
INSTANCE CASE (in hearings)
CRIMINAL 4.9 4.8 MISDEMEANOR 1.9 2 CIVIL 5.3 4.9 BUSINESS 4.7 4.4
NO. OF MONTHS BETWEEN HEARINGS IN FIRST INSTANCE CASE
(in months)
CRIMINAL 3.4 4.3 MISDEMEANOR 3.8 4.6 CIVIL 3.8 4 BUSINESS 3.8 3.9
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Duration of the case: When was the judgment enforced? - When did one of the parties appear before a judge for the first time? Waiting for the start of the case: When did one of the parties appear before a judge for the first time? - When was the case filed?Number of hearings: How many total hearings were scheduled in the first-instance court, including those that were scheduled but not held?
12
2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013
63% 63%52%
47%53% 55%
LAWYERSPROSECUTORS
=
JUDGES
=
HEARING EFFICIENCY INDEX – PROFESSIONAL STAFF, 2009 - 2013
EFFICIENCY INDEX: MEAN % OF HEARINGS CONTRIBUTING TO PROCESS RESOLUTION, OUT OF TOTAL SCHEDULED, according to reports (based on reported percent of canceled and inefficient hearings out of total scheduled)
15
2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013
54% 55%
73%69%
50%58% 56%
63%
CIVILMISDEMEANOR BUSINESS
HEARING EFFICIENCY INDEX – COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCE, 2009 - 2013
CRIMINAL
==
EFFICIENCY INDEX: MEAN % OF REPORTED HEARINGS CONTRIBUTING TO PROCESS RESOLUTION, OUT OF TOTAL SCHEDULED, according to reports (based on reported numbers of canceled and inefficient hearings out of total scheduled)
GENERAL POPULATION ENTERPRISES16
APPEALS ON FIRST INSTANCE CASES – USERS WITH EXPERIENCE, 2009-2013
17
% OF APPEALED FIRST INSTANCE CASES*from all cases in which first-instant judgment was rendered in period from 2011-2013
If there was an appeal: DECISION OF HIGHER COURT ON THE FIRST APPEAL TO THE FIRST INSTANCE JUDGMENT:
Percentage of appeals is significantly higher in criminal and civil cases than in misdemeanor cases.
PA10 Did you or the other party appeal to a higher court?PA11 What was the decision of the higher court after your first appeal which you submitted following the first instance court judgment?If the judgment was overturned and a retrial ordered, PA12 How many times was a retrial of your case ordered?
2010 2013
35 3228
36
3
3
30
28
40
6
1
24
The judgment was overturned and a retrial ordered
The judgment was upheld
The higher court passed a more lenient judgment
The higher court passed a stricter judgment
The case is still in process
18
QUALITY OF JUDICIAL SYSTEM
PERCEPTION OF QUALITY OF JUDICIAL SYSTEM, 2009-2013
Percentage of positive evaluationsCitizens
Business
JudgesProsecutors
Lawyers
0
20
40
60
80
79
5168
6
13 21
4253
6
2009
2013
MB1/B1: What is your general impression of the quality of work of the judiciary in the past few years ? (%of “High” +”Very high”)
19
9
37
9
16
32
5
2013 2009
MOST IMPORTANT REASON WHY THE QUALITY OF JUDICIAL WORK WAS NOT HIGHER – PROFESSIONAL STAFF, 2009-2013
20
Unclear laws
Lack of staff
Poor organization
Judges Prosecutors Lawyers
% of PROFESSIONAL STAFF , % OF THE THREE MOST OFTEN NAMED REASONS
25
13
7
21
21
12
25
6
30
19
11
29
B6: Which of the following reasons that explain why the quality of work was not higher would you select as the most important one?)
MOST IMPORTANT REASON WHY THE QUALITY OF JUDICIAL WORK WAS NOT HIGHER IN THEIR CASE – COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCE, 2009-2013
21
Bad laws
Poor organization
The judge did not do his/her job well
Criminal Civil Business
% of COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCE WHO ASSESSED QUALITY AS LOW OR MODERATE (67% in 2009 and 68% in 2013), % OF THE THREE MOST OFTEN NAMED REASONS
32
21
15
29
25
21
Misdemeanor
28
27
20
19
26
37
32
30
13
30
30
23
27
26
23
28
27
24
PB2: Which of the following reasons that explain why the quality of work was not higher would you select as the most important one?)
22
EVALUATION OF THE JUDGE IN THEIR CASE ON SPECIFIC ATRIBUTES – COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCE, 2009-2013
2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013
7481
67 69 66 69 64 62 61 63
agree ( mainly/fully )
The judge was politeand pleasant
The judge was impartial, fair and objective
The judge generated trust and respect
The judge was efficient
The judge was not corrupt
% of citizens, court users with experience who to en extent or fully agree with the following statements about the judge in their case
PB4: To what extent do you agree with the following assertions on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 represents ‘fully disagree’ and 4 represents ‘fully agree’? (%of “To an extent agree” +”Fully agree”)
23
ACCESSIBILITY OF JUDICIAL SYSTEM
24
Citizens
Business
JudgesProsecutors
Lawyers
0
20
40
60
80
100
54
53
8886
74
56
59
7871
59
2009
2013
Percentage of positive evaluations
PERCEPTION OF ACCESSIBILITY OF JUDICIAL SYSTEM, 2009-2013
C2_1: To what extent were the FOLLOWING judicial courts accessible to all citizens, notwithstanding their age, education level, financial status, nationality, invalidity? (%of “Mostly” +”Very”)
25
LAYOUT OF COURTS (HOW EASY WAS IT TO FIND YOUR WAY AND MOVE AROUND THE COURTHOUSE) – PROFESSIONAL STAFF AND COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCE, 2009-2013
Judges Prosecutors Lawyers Citizens Business
91 86 8388 86
8269
7586 87
2009 2013
% responding “Mostly” or “Fully” Accessible
PROFESSIONAL STAFF COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCEC1/MC4: How accessible was the judicial system to citizens by following aspects? (%of “Mostly” +”Very”)
26
DISTANCE TO THE COURTHOUSE – PROFESSIONAL STAFF AND COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCE, 2009-2013
Judges Prosecutors Lawyers Citizens Business
89 84 88 92 89
65
46
61
83 83
2009 2013
PROFESSIONAL STAFFC1/MC4: How accessible was the judicial system to citizens by following aspects? (%of “Mostly” +”Very”)
COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCE
% responding “Mostly” or “Fully” Accessible
27
ACCESS TO INFORMATION – PROFESSIONAL STAFF AND COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCE, 2009-2013
Judges Prosecutors Lawyers Citizens Business
88 86
6469
7187
7870 69
77
2009 2013
PROFESSIONAL STAFFC1/MC4: How accessible was the judicial system to citizens by following aspects? (%of “Mostly” +”Very”)
COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCE
% responding “Mostly” or “Fully” Accessible
28
COURT-RELATED COSTS (COURT FEES, TRIAL COSTS, TRAVEL COSTS) – PROFESSIONAL STAFF AND COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCE, 2009-2013
Judges Prosecutors Lawyers Citizens Business
69 67
38 36
59
49
33
23
36
55
2009 2013
PROFESSIONAL STAFFC1/MC4: How accessible was the judicial system to citizens by following aspects? (%of “Mostly” +”Very”)
COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCE
% responding “Mostly” or “Fully” Accessible
29
LAWYER-RELATED COSTS – PROFESSIONAL STAFF AND COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCE, 2009-2013
Judges Prosecutors Lawyers Citizens Business
45
34
53
29
60
2317
2925
50
2009 2013
PROFESSIONAL STAFFC1/MC4: How accessible was the judicial system to citizens by following aspects? (%of “Mostly” +”Very”)
COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCE
% responding “Mostly” or “Fully” Accessible
30
FAIRNESS OF JUDICIAL SYSTEM
31
Citizens
Business
JudgesProsecutors
Lawyers
0
20
40
60
80
100
48
53
8987
57
52
60
8180
62
2009
2013
Percentage of positive evaluations
PERCEPTION OF FAIRNESS OF JUDICIAL SYSTEM, 2009-2013
D1/MD1: How fair was the judicial system in 2009? Please rate it on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 represents ‘Largely unfair’ and 4 represents ‘Largely fair’.? (%of “Mostly” +”Largely”)
32
PRIMARY REASON FOR EVALUATING THE JUDICIARY SYSTEM AS NOT FULLY FAIR– PROFESSIONAL STAFF, 2013
Judges Lawyers Prosecutors
52
6056
3745
34
20
43
1817 18 21
4
19
6
Overload/poor orga-nization of the judicial system
Poor legal provisions
The judicial system is politicized
Insufficient access to information
Corruption in the judicial system
% of PROFESSIONAL STAFF WHO DID NOT EVALUATED FAIRNESS AS “LARGELY FAIR”
No difference between 2009 and 2013.
D4/D2: What is the chief reason why you did not grade fairness of the judicial system as totally fair? What is the second most important reason? Multiple answer, Base: Those who did not assess the fairness with highest grade, as “Largely fair”
33
2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013
19 2929
27 3143 48 44
-26 -28-13
-27 -25-20 -18 -18
No Yes, fully
PERCEPTION OF FAIRNESS OF TRIAL – COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCE, 2009-2013
CRIMINAL MISDEMEANOR CIVIL BUSINESS
% of court users evaluation of having received a full fair trial, and not having fair trail
There is a difference in perception of fairness of trial based on judgment: court users who did not have judgment in their favor were more likely to estimate that they didn’t have fair trial
PD2/PD7: Notwithstanding the outcome of the court proceedings, what do you think of the first-instance proceedings themselves? Did you have a fair trial?? (3-point scale)
PERCEPTION OF UNEQUAL TREATMENT BY JUDICIAL SYSTEM IN SERBIA – CITIZENS, 2009-2013
35
Socio-economic status
Education
Nationality
Disability
Age
Gender
Place of residence
With court experience Without court experience
63
41
38
26
28
26
22
61
42
41
35
32
30
32
% of those who think that the judicial system in Serbia not equally treat all citizens
57
40
38
28
26
28
21
61
37
34
25
24
24
23 2013 2009
MD3: In your view, did the judicial system in Serbia in 2009 equally treat all citizens notwithstanding their: :...% of„No“
36
Judges
Prosecutors
Lawyers
Court administrative
staff
Equal chances for professional promotion Equal income
73
68
71
68
68
59
48
68
Female Male2013 - Do you think that both men and women in your profession have equal chances for professional promotion? Yes% 2013 - Thinking about total income of people employed in your profession, would you say that there are differences between men and women, or they are equal from that aspect? Equality exist %
89
88
69
78
81
80
47
82
PERCEPTION OF GENDER DIFFERENCES IN OPPORTUNITIES AND INCOME INSIDE JUDICIARY PROFESSIONS, 2013
% of legal professionals thinking there is equality
37
INDEPENDENCE OF JUDICIAL SYSTEM
Citizens
Business
JudgesProsecutors
Lawyers
0
20
40
60
80
2226
7673
33
33
40
7163
44
2009
2013
Percentage of positive evaluations
PERCEPTION OF INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, 2009-2013
38
E1/ME2: How independent was the judicial system in Serbia in last 12 months? Please use a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 means not at all and 4 means to a great extent. (% of “To an extent” +”To great extent”)
TRUST IN INSTITUTIONS – CITIZENS, 2009-2013
Chur
ch
Arm
y
Educ
ation
S...
Pres
iden
t
Polic
e
Hea
lth S
yste
m
Gov
ernm
ent
Judi
cial
Sy.
..
Nati
onal
As.
..
Med
ia
NG
Os
in S
e...
56
47 46
33 33 36
1419
11
22
13
5851
4742
35 33 3126 25 24 22
2009 2013
% of citizens who have mainly/fully trust
39
ME1Please rate the degree in which you trust the following sectors and institutions on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents ‘do not trust at all’ and 5 represents ‘trust fully’.. (% of “mostly trust” and “fully trust”
TO WHAT EXTENET DID THE FOLLOWING INSTITUTIONS JEOPARDIZED THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM – PERCEPTION OF PROVIDERS, 2013
International organiza-tions
Big business
NGOs in Serbia
Government
Specific ministries
Political parties
Politicians
The Media
16
19
22
32
36
51
52
60
22
20
29
33
36
57
58
62
Prosecutors
Judges
Compared to 2009 in 2013:
• Lower percentage of judges believe that media and Ministries undermine judicial independence
• Higher percentages of prosecutors think that politicians and political parties undermine judicial independence
% of JUDGES and PROSECUTORS who found that listed institutions undermined judicial independence “to an extent” or “to a great extent”
40
E2: In your opinion, to what extent have the following institutions undermined independence of the judicial system in the past 12 months? Please us the scale from 1 to 4, where 1 means Not at all, and 4 means To a great extent. (% of “to an extent” or “to a great extent)
TO WHAT EXTENT DID PARTIALITY OF JUDGES UNDERMINE INTEGRITY/TRUST OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, 2013
% of respondents who think that partiality of judges undermine the integrity/trust of the judicial system
ME3a/E2: To what extent did partiality of judges due to improper influence of other judges, lawyers and other persons participating in the proceedings undermine the integrity/trust of the judicial system in last 12 months? (% of “to an extent” or “to great extent”) 41
Judges Prosecutors Lawyers Citizens Business
28
37
64
7566
2013INTEGRITY TRUST
42
CORRUPTION IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM
Percentage of respondents claiming that there is NO corruption
Citizens
Business
JudgesProsecutors
Lawyers
0
20
40
60
1214
2423
7
13 27
5144
17
2009
2013
PERCEPTION OF ABSENCE OF CORRUPTION IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, 2009-2013
43
E7: In your opinion, was there corruption in the judicial system in last 12 months? 3-point scale, % of„No”ME9: How present is corruption in the following sectors and institutions on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents ‘not at all’ and 5 ‘ to a great degree’?. (% of “ some extent “ + „great extent“
CORRUPTION AS THE MAIN FACTOR UNDERMINING INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, 2009-2013
General population
Business
Lawyers
Prosecutors
Judges
36
16
11
2
3
31
18
9
8
52009
2013
(ME3/E6)
% of target group cited that corruption is the main factor undermining integrity of Judicial system
INTE
GRI
TYTR
UST
44ME3b/E6: Which of these factors undermined trust in the judicial system in last 12 months the most ? % of “ Corruption in judicial system” as the most important factor
Judi
cial
Sys
tem
Heal
th S
yste
m
Nati
onal
Ass
embl
y
Gove
rnm
ent
Polic
e
Educ
ation
Sys
tem
Pres
iden
t
5853 53 50 49
35
23
5159
37 3949
36
22
2009 2013
% of citizens perceiving presence of corruption in state institutions
PERCEPTION OF CORRUPTION IN DIFFERENT STATE INSTITUTIONS – CITIZENS, 2009-2013
45
ME9: How present is corruption in the following sectors and institutions on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents ‘not at all’ and 5 ‘ to a great degree’?. (% of “ some extent “ + „great extent“
REPORTED USAGE OF INFORMAL MEANS – COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCE, 2009-2013
2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013
2 2
10 9
2 2 3 4
% of court users with experience who resorted to informal means.
PE2 Did you ever find yourself in circumstances in which you resorted to informal means (made an additional payment, offered a gift, pulled strings…) to have your case adjudicated more efficiently?% of Yes
CRIMINAL MISDEMEANOR CIVIL BUSINESS
46
47
COSTS OF COURT SERVICES
One half of all citizens with experience perceive OVERALL EXPENSES IN THEIR COURT CASE as excessive, but…
Low quality Average quality High quality
75
49
29
Excessive
If the quality is perceived as good then the costs are not perceived as excessive.
Total: 51%
PERCEPTION OF COSTS BY QUALITY OF SERVICES – CITIZENS WITH EXPERIENCE, 2013
%of users who think that cost are extensive
48
PF3: Do you think the costs were small, “reasonable” or excessive given the quality of court services you were provided? (% of „Excessive“)
50
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
27
26
37
13
25
37
31
20
17
13
26
17
2013 2009
NUMBER OF VISITS AND TIME SPENT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE TASK – ADMINISTRATIVE TASK USERS, 2009-2013
51
Verification
Other
Business tasks
% of users visiting a courthouse 3 or more times to complete a task
% of users who spent more than 1 hour in courthouse
GEN
ERAL
PU
BLIC
51
AA2: How many times did you have to go to the courthouse to complete the task?
AA4: How much of that time did you spend IN THE COURTHOUSE to complete this administrative task?
USAGE OF INFORMAL MEANS IN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES – ADMINISTRATIVE TASK USERS, 2009-2013
% of users of court administrative services who use of informal means to speed up process
VERIFICATION OTHER BUSINESS TASKS
AE3: Did you ever find yourself in circumstances in which you resorted to informal means (made an additional payment, offered a gift, pulled strings…) to complete your administrative task in court faster? % of„Yes“ 52
CITIZENS
2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013
19
913
814
5
53
REFORMS 2010 AND NATIONAL JUDICIAL REFORM STRATEGY
FOR THE PERIOD 2013-2018
AWARENESS OF JUDICIAL REFORMS IN 2010 AND NATIONAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM REFORM, 2010-2013
54
75
72
92
87
51
40
81
65
2013 2010
General public with court experience
General public without
court experience
Business with court experience
Business without court experience
% of general public and businesses who had heard about 2010 REFORM
13
11
31
25
% of general public and business who had heard about new NATIONAL JUDICIAL REFORM STRATEGY 2013-2018
5453
MG1: Have you heard about the judicial system reform launched on 1 January 2010?
MH1: Have you heard about the new National Judicial Reform Strategy for the period 2013 – 2018?
WHAT PEOPLE COULD SAY ABOUT JUDICIAL REFORM 2010 – CITIZENS, 2010-2013
Reappointment of judges/change of judges
Speeded up and more efficient processes are per-formance of j
Dismissals/ reduction of number of employees, administration
Reduction of the number of judges
Abolishing of some courts/reduction of the number of courts
Reorganization of judiciary, work of judges and judiciary
49
11
10
7
6
5
39
8
7
4
5
4
2013
2010
MG2: Can you specify anything that has been done within the framework of this judicial reform? Multiple answers; Base: those who heard about the judicial system reform launched in January 2010
55
KNOWLEDGE ABOUT NEW NATIONAL JUDICIAL REFORM STRATEGY – PROFESSIONAL STAFF, 2013
56
35
38
21
14
Over a half of judges and prosecutors obtained information about the new National judicial strategy from other sources than official.
Judges
Prosecutors
Lawyers
Court administrative
staff
% of professionals who are fully and to extent informed about new National judicial reform strategy 2013-2018
H1: How well informed are you about new National Judicial Reform Strategy on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents “not at all” and 5 represents “very well informed”.. (% of „Mostly“ and „Very well“
79
88
55
58
55
51
36
40
20132010
57
84
84
78
78
SUPPORT FOR JUDICIAL REFORMS IN 2010 AND NATIONAL JUDICIAL REFORM STRATEGY – PROFESSIONAL STAFF, 2010-2013
2010 reform: % of support in 2010 and 2013
New National Strategy: % of support in 2013
However, for all groups of professionals, EXPECTATIONS of the new National Judicial Strategy are significantly higher than expectations were for 2010 reforms.
Judges
Prosecutors
Lawyers
Court administrative
staff
57H3: Do you support the new National Judicial Reform Strategy in general or not?
G3: Do you support the current judicial reform in general or not?
Efficiency
Quality
Accessability
Fairness
Integrity
Cost effectivness
0
20
40
60
2524
2321
25
20 191720
1212
7Expectations in 2010
Evaluations in 2013
REFORMS 2010 – RETROSPECTION: EXPECTATIONS IN 2010 AND EVALUATIONS IN 2013
Providers of services – Judges and prosecutors
Users of services – Citizens, business
Intermediary– Lawyers
Efficiency
Quality
Accessability
Fairness
Integrity
Cost effectivness
0
20
40
60
56
53
50
49
45
35 3234
322625
24
Efficiency
Quality
Accessability
Fairness
Integrity
Cost effectivness
0
20
40
60
50
47
42
56
52
3730
27
252825
14
Percentage of positive evaluations
58
Thank you for your attention!
59
CONCLUSION
1. PERCEPTIONS OF USERS ARE IMPROVING IN SOME KEY AREAS, BUT GAINS ARE FRAGILE 2. PERCEPTIONS DIFFER BETWEEN MEMBERS OF PUBLIC WITH EXERIENCE AND WITHOUT EXPERIENCE WITH COURT CASES 3. PERCEPTIONS DIFFER BETWEEN USERS (RELATIVELY MORE NEGATIVE) AND PROVIDERS OF JUSTICE SERVICES (RELATIVELY MORE POSITIVE) 4. POSITIONS ARE COMING CLOSER AS PERCEPTIONS AMONG SERVICE PROVIDERS BECOME MORE NEGATIVE AND PERCEPTIONS AMONG USERS MORE POSITIVE 5. COMMUNICATION OF PROGRESS IS KEY FOR REFORMERS TO GET CREDIT FOR REFORMS LARGELY SUPPORTED BY STAKEHOLDERS
60
NEXT STEPS
SHARE PRESENTATION SLIDES WITH STAKEHOLDERS FURTHER PRESENTATIONS TO BROADER STAKEHOLDERS DETAILED ANALYTICAL REPORT WILL BE DELIVERED TOGETHER WITH FUNCTIONAL REVIEW MOST RELEVANT FINDINGS WILL BE INCLUDED IN FUNCTIONAL REVIEW REPORT
61
Recommended