2009 Uzelac Croatia Legal Reform

Divided Societies 2009

Judicial Reform in CroatiaJudicial Reform in Croatia

Is The Glass (Half) Full or (Half) Empty?Is The Glass (Half) Full or (Half) Empty?

Prof. Dr. ALAN UZELACUniversity of Zagreb, Faculty of Lawuzelac@post.harvard.edu

Prof. Dr. ALAN UZELACUniversity of Zagreb, Faculty of Lawuzelac@post.harvard.edu

Divided Societies 2009

Why ju

dicia

l refo

rm?

BBC and safetyfor tourists in

Croatia

The Haguecomplex

Chapter 23

Divided Societies 2009

MoJ A

nti-co

rruptio

n ca

mp

aig

n

Divided Societies 2009

Outlin

e

• Action plan of the judicial reform strategy– Reality or fiction?

• How to evaluate judicial reforms?- Subjective approach: perceptions- Objective approach: indicators

• Examples of subjective and objective indicators- Public perception- Objective indicators

- Structural comparison: Legal professions, courts, investments, duration of proceedings

- Functional evaluation: Judicial processes

- Can EU accession process help judicial reform?- Conclusions:

- Judicial reform between political illusion and tangible results.

Divided Societies 2009

“Strategy” of judicial reform“Strategy” of judicial reform

Croatian way of dealing with unpleasant jobsCroatian way of dealing with unpleasant jobs

Divided Societies 2009

Histo

ry o

f Actio

n P

lan

s

• Early reform attempts– 1995-2000

• reforms announced, wrong direction

– 2000-2003• attempts of reforms, mainly unsuccessful

• New way: production of Action Plans on reforms of judiciary– 2004: announcement– 2005: adopted by the Government– 2006: passed by the Parliament– 2008: Action Plan revised

• Achievements?

Divided Societies 2009

Stra

tegy?

• Independence of judiciary– appointment, assessment and career

management– transparent system of promotion

• Impartiality– judicial ethics, anti-corruption measures

• Professionalism and expertise– training of prospective judges by a Judicial

Academy• Efficiency of the judiciary

– resolving backlog, cases older than 3 years– rationalisation of the court network– mediation– information technology, ICMS

• Free legal aid• Prison system• War crime proceedings

Divided Societies 2009

How to evaluate reforms?How to evaluate reforms?

Criteria? Indicators?Criteria? Indicators?

Divided Societies 2009

Objective indicators• benchmarks• statistical data• performance analysis

Public perception• polls• surveys• users’ satisfaction• interviews• views of outside observers

Divided Societies 2009

Corru

ptio

n p

erce

ptio

n in

dex

2004 2005 2006

Judiciary 3,8Political parties 4

Judiciary 4,4

Political parties 3,6

Judiciary 3,7Health services 4,3

Parliament3,6

Parliament3,6

Economy4,2

Health services 3,6

Economy3,5

Parties & Parliament 4,1

Divided Societies 2009

Vis-à-vis: Avis on judiciary

Divided Societies 2009

EU

Pro

gre

ss report fo

r C

roatia

(XI/2

00

7)

Divided Societies 2009

Comparing legal professions

Divided Societies 2009

Ob

jectiv

e e

valu

atio

n o

f the

Eu

ropean ju

stice sy

stem

s?

• European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ)– Established Sep 2002 by CoE resolution

12(2002)– Operation initiated at the beginning of 2003

• Seated in Strasbourg

– Members: 47 CoE Member States• Plenary session – Working Groups – Bureau -

Secretariat

– Mandate:• To enable evaluation of European justice

systems, inter alia by development of qualitative and quantitative indicators & statistical means of evaluation

• Aim: to assist Member States in improving quality and efficiency of their justice systems

Divided Societies 2009

Evaluation of the European justice systems

First evaluation • 2001 – 2003 period

(data for the year 2002)

Second evaluation • period 2004 – 2006

(data for the year 2004)

Third evaluation• period 2006 – 2008

(data for the year 2006)

Divided Societies 2009

Law

yers in

Euro

pe

(per 1

00

.00

0 in

h.)

Source: CEPEJ Report, 2008. (2006 data)

Divided Societies 2009

Num

ber o

f law

yers:

tren

ds 1

992

-20

09

Year Lawyers

% Interns %

1992 1221 100 380 100

1994 1782 146 483 127

1997 2100 172 550 145

2004 2493 204 965 254

2008 3427 280 1620 4260

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

1992

.

1993

.

1994

.

1995

.

1996

.

1997

.

1998

.

1999

.

2000

.

2001

.

2002

.

2003

.

2004

.

2005

.

2006

.

2007

.

2008

.

Divided Societies 2009

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

30,0

CyprusFinlandSwedenRussian FederationUkraineItalyM

oldovaIcelandNorwayEngland and W

alesArm

eniaM

onacoAndorraG

ermany

Czech RepublicFranceBelgiumLatviaAzerbaijanPortugalAustriaM

altaM

ontenegroLuxem

burgScotlandEstonieAlbaniaLithouaniaSlovak RepublicBulgariaG

eorgiaNetherlandsHungaryTurkeyPolandRoum

aniaIrelandSloveniaNorthern IrelandSpainCroatiaSerbiaBosnia HerzegovinaDenm

arkG

reeceSan M

arino

Enforcement agents Notaries

Enforcement agents and notaries

Divided Societies 2009

Num

ber o

f ju

dg

es in

Eu

rope

Divided Societies 2009

Legal p

rofe

ssion

s in E

uro

pe

an

d C

roatia

European average

60%

13%15%

6%

6%

Judge Prosecutor Lawyer (ex. Advisor) Enforcement agent Notary

Divided Societies 2009

Judicial organization - court locations (general competence courts and specialized courts) per 100.000 inhabitants (data 2004)

Divided Societies 2009

Resu

lts o

f the T

win

nin

g

Pro

ject (F

inn

lan

d a

nd

A

ustria

)

COUNTY COURTSMUNICIPAL COURTS COMMERCIAL COURTSMISDEMEANOUR COURT

LEGEND:

COUNTY COURTS

MUNICIPAL COURTS

MISDEMEANOUR COURTS

COMMERCIAL COURTSALL UNOPENED COURTS

126266

Divided Societies 2009

Stru

ctura

l conclu

sions fo

r C

roatia

• Underdeveloped legal landscape:– no bailiffs;– poor use of judicial employees– confusion regarding the role of “court

counsels”– surplus of judges

• Structural deficiencies– number of courts too high– unbalanced distribution of cases and

judges– judges are performing many non-

judicial tasks: enforcement, registers, internal administration

– some legal professionals are charged with the tasks that are not their core occupation (notaries)

Divided Societies 2009

… a much harder task …… a much harder task …

Divided Societies 2009€ /# inhabitants (100k)

Austria 71,30

France 32,99

Romania 5,48

Finland 51,03

Hungary 27,00

Ukraine 2,32

Croatia 30,43

Italy 46,76

Netherlands 53,07

Expenses of European statesfor their justice systems

Expenses of European statesfor their justice systems

data 2002.

Court budget +Legal aid expenses

Divided Societies 2009

Court backlogs

0,4

0,6

0,8

1

1,2

1,4

1,6

1,8

2

2,2

2,4

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Cour

t cas

es (i

n mi

llions

)

Backlog

Received

Resolved

Divided Societies 2009

Stru

cture

of ca

ses

20

00

to 2

00

8 0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Civil litigation Enforcement Land registry

Non-contentious Criminal

Stimulating peaceful resolution ofdisputes by consent?

Litigations in MCJudgment Settlement Else

62% 2% 36%

Commercial litigationsJudgment Settlement Else

50,8% 3,6% 45,6%

Presudom Nagodbom Drugi način

Presudom

Nagodbom

Drugi način

Type of judgment:- full hearing: 80 %- claim admitted: 6 %- default: 14 %

Type of judgment:- full hearing: 92,7 %- claim admitted: 3,3 %- default: 4,0 %

YearLitigations resolved by:

Judgment

% Court settlem

ent

% Else %

2001.2002.2003.2004.2005.2006.2007.

731546780576407103589877627961279446

62,658,264,165,157,061,462,2

3327285725653528352728142742

2,82,52,22,02,32,22,1

40312457794013552376626234728445619

34,539,333,732,940,736,535,7

YearJudgment based on

A full hearing

% Admittance

% Default %

2001.2002.2003.2004.2005.2006.2007.

55603518326018075620628066130963927

76,076,478,873,071,677,080,5

713269856720134741349681154945

9,710,38,813,015,410,26,2

104198988950714495114601018810574

14,213,312,414,013,112,813,3

Can you see some change?

Divided Societies 2009

Can EU accession process resolve the problem?

Can EU accession process resolve the problem?

Divided Societies 2009

Eu

ropean ju

stice sy

stem

s an

d th

e E

U

Divided Societies 2009

• In spite of an urgent social need, the judicial reform does not seem to produce adequate results.

• EU accession process has facilitated reforms while there was sufficient time; in the last period, it had a negative impact, due to the political need to produce impression of results.

• The powerful corporative lobbies of legal professionals has effectively slowed down the process and blurred its aims.

• Only objective and neutral monitoring of the progress of judicial reform can be a guarantee for the continuing reform progress, but…

• …the scientific judicial studies are more hated than ever by those responsible for the reform strategies!

Con

clusio

ns

Divided Societies 2009

Thank you for your attention!Thank you for your attention!

© uze

lac@

post.h

arv

ard

.ed

u