1

Report on European judicial systems

Presentation of the main resultsEdition 2012 (data 2010)

2

Aims

- qualitative and quantitative information on the daily

functioning of judicial systems - exchange of knowledge

- comparison of judicial systems

3

Report is the base of CEPEJ‘s work !

4

About 3 million entries, plus many comments• Budget: Financing of the judicial systems• Legal aid • Rights and public confidence for court users• Courts (number, organisation, IT use, courts’ activities, …)• Alternative dispute resolution• Judges, Prosecutors and their staff• Lawyers, notaries• …

5

• Interprete and analyse data with caution read comments on particularities of systems

• No ranking of best judicial •systems

6

• Report presents data of 2010• 5th report (previous reports 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2010) presentation of some evolution and trends !• Based on replies received from 46 Member States (Liechtenstein absent)About 800 million people concernedImportant differences: history, political and judicial organisation, size, wealth, …

7Level of population and per capita GDP in Europe in 2010

8

Budget allocated to the overall justice system in 2010

9

Country

Total annual approved budget allocated to the whole justice system (in €) Evolution between 2006 and 2008

(in %)2006 2008

Armenia 8 851 162 14 622 030 65.2 %

Estonia 68 795 556 118 251 762 71.9 %

Hungary 600 700 000 1 787 400 000 197.6 %

Italy 7 819 041 068 7 278 169 362 -6.9 %

Iceland 24 400 000 19 008 821 -22.1 %

Moldova 20 390 097 35 686 050 75%

Montenegro 18 670 104 37 358 769 100.1 %

Sweden 3 083 500 000 3 033 863 752 -1.6 %

UK-Scotland 3 095 384 036 1 785 097 305 -42.3 %Significant increases in central and eastern European countries (over 65% in Armenia, Estonia, Hungary, Moldova, Montenegro)

Decrease (Italy)

Evolution of exchange rate (Iceland, Sweden and UK-Scotland)

PAS de tableau similaire dans le rapport 2012

10

Distribution of the main budgetary

posts of the courts

Salaries are the highest

expenditure for courts:

about 66.1% at an

european level;

computeri-sation 3%,

training 0.9%

11

Legal aid

Annual public budget allocated to legal aid per inhabitant in 2010

12

Number of cases granted with legal aid per 100.000 inhabitants + budget allocated to legal aid per case

diversity of policy (see Bosnia & Herzegovina, France, UK-England and Wales for instance)

13

Number of all courts (geographic locations) per 100.000 inhabitants

In 2010

Highest rates: Federation of Russia, Turkey, Spain.

Below 1 court:

19 states like Netherlands, Malta, Denmark.

14

Information and communication technology in courts

Level of implementation of computer equipment for the direct assistance of judges and/or court clerks

- Word processing, - Internet connection- Electronic database of jurisprudence - E-mail.

15

Level of implemen-tation of

computer equipment

for the direct

assistance of judges

and/or court

clerks

most countries

have a high level!

16

Performance and quality targets defined for an individual judge and at the court level

13 countries: targets defined for judges and at the court level

14 countries use no targets! (12 in 2010)

17

Alternative Dispute

ResolutionMajority

apply at least 2 forms:

Mediation and Arbitration

No Mediation in

Andorra, Armenia, Estonia, Georgia,

Turkey and Ukraine

No ADR in Azerbaijan, Bulgaria,

Czech Republic and San Marino

18

Professio-nal judges

More judges in Eastern Europe

UK-England and Wales,

UK-Northern Ireland, UK-

Scotland, Norway: pre-eminent role of lay judges

19

Average annual variation between 2004 and 2008

At an European level: increase of the number of professional judges, in particular in states in transition: Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Russian Federation, “the former Yugoslaw Republic of Macedonia”

In 16 states or entities out of 48, essentially in Western Europe, the number of judges per 100.000 inhabitants has decreased.

20

Number of public

prosecutors per 100.000 inhabitants Highest number in

Central and Eastern

European states

21

Clearance rateClearance rate = resolved cases / incoming cases x 100

Indicates the ability of a court to resolve incoming cases within a given time period

>100%: court resolves more cases than received reduces backlog

<100%: the number of unresolved cases will rise at the end of the reporting period creates backlogs

22

CR of civil litigious and non-litigious

cases in 2010 very

good performan-ces for 13 countries

(many Eastern states)

23

Disposition timeDisposition time = 365 days / (Number of resolved cases / Number of unresolved

cases at the end)

measures how many days it takes for a type of case to be resolved

24

Disposition time of

litigious and non-litigious

civil (and commercial) cases in 1st

instance courts in

2010, in days

25

Clearance rate and disposition time

Efficient 1st instance civil courts: Russian Federation, Azberbaijan, Austria, Norway, Czech Republic, Switzerland,

HungaryImprovements: Ukraine and Lithuania

26

Litigious divorce cases: average length of proceedings at first instance courts between 2006 and 2010, in days

27

Lawyers

Number of lawyers (with and without legal advisors) per 100.000 inhabitants in 2010 southern states have a high number of lawyers:

Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal

28

Average annual variation between 2006 and 2010

Azerbaijan, Armenia, Latvia and Moldova : increase explained by the on-going development of new legal and judicial systems

Luxembourg, San Marino, Switzerland: developed consulting and legal activities but also small states with small number of

inhabitants

29

Enforcement: timeframe for notification of a court decision on debt recovery

to a person living in the city where the court is sitting

30

Number of notaries per 100.000 inhabitants

31

ConclusionsSuccess !

dynamic process of evaluating

European judicial systemsNext evaluation has already started !

32

On-goingTranslations in Romanian and

Turkish

http://www.coe.int/cepej

Report can be downloaded from the CEPEJ website