CEPEJ 2018 Eval PowerPoint Presentation - rm.coe.int

Update: 03/10/2016

European judicial systems Efficiency and quality of justice

2018 edition (2016 data)

2

45 Member

states

evaluated

+2 observers

17 Months to

collect, check

and analyse

data, to draft the

reports and to

build the internet

database

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Georgia

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Iceland

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

FRA

MCOAND

ESP

PRT

MLT

SMR

ITA

GRC

CYP

TUR

BGR

ROU

MDA

SRB

MKD

ALB

MNE

BIH

HRV

SVN

HUN

AUTCHE LIE

LUX

DEU

CZE

POL

UKR

GEOAZE

ARM

RUSLTU

LVA

EST

FIN

SWE

NOR

ISL

UK:ENG&WAL

UK:SCO

UK:NIR

IRL

BEL

NLD

DNK

SVK

ISR

MAR

Less than 10 000 € Less than 5 000 000

From 10 000 to less than 20 000 € From 5 000 000 to less than 10 000 000

From 20 000 to less than 40 000 € From 10 000 000 to 20 000 000

40 000 € and over 20 000 000 and over

Not a member of CoE

Data not supplied

PopulationPer capita GDP

3

Judicial system budget (Q6+Q12+Q13)

Court budget

(Q6)

Legal aid

(Q12)

Public

prosecution

services

(Q13)

Gross salaries

Computerisation

Justice expenses

Court buildings

New buildings

Training and education

Other

Criminal cases (Q12.1)

Brought to court

(Q12.1.1)

Not brought to court

(Q12.1.2)

Other than criminal

cases (Q12.2)

Brought to court

(Q12.2.1)

Not brought to court

(Q12.2.2)

Content of the judicial system budget Definition: Judicial system budget

4

Public budget allocated

to the judicial system per capita in € ►Figure 2.7

Stable +5% -5% NA

ALB AND ARM AUT AZE BEL BIH BGR HRV CYP CZE DNK

2014 9 € NA NA 96 € 16 € 85 € 30 € 33 € 51 € NA 45 € 83 €

2016 10 € 99 € 8 € 107 € 8 € 82 € 34 € 37 € 54 € 61 € 48 € 84 €

EST FIN FRA GEO DEU GRC HUN ISL IRL ITA LVA LTU

2014 40 € 71 € 64 € 10 € NA 44 € 41 € NA 48 € 73 € 37 € 33 €

2016 43 € 77 € 66 € 10 € 122 € 41 € 44 € 111 € 50 € 75 € 40 € 40 €

LUX MLT MDA MCO MNE NLD NOR POL PRT ROU RUS SRB

2014 139 € 35 € 8 € NA 42 € 122 € 78 € 49 € 52 € 35 € 32 € NA

2016 157 € 37 € 8 € 164 € NA 119 € 81 € 52 € 57 € 30 € 24 € NA

SVK SVN ESP SWE CHE MKD TUR UKR UK:ENG&WALUK:SCO ISR MAR

2014 NA 90 € 77 € 103 € 219 € 18 € 21 € 9 € 92 € 78 € NA

2016 50 € 90 € 79 € 119 € 215 € 20 € 18 € 8 € 79 € 79 € 83 € 16 €

Average Median

2014 58 € 46 €

2016 64 € 53 €

5

Budgets of the judicial systems per

capita and per capita GDP in 2016 ►Figure 2.8

Per

cap

ita G

DP

Budgetary effort for judicial system

AZEUKRMDAARMGEOALBMAR

TUR

MKD

RUSROU

BIH

MLT

BGR

LVALTU

GRCEST

HUN

CZESVK

IRL

POLHRV

PRT

CYP

FRA

ITA

FIN

UK:ENG&WAL

ESP

UK:SCO

NOR

BELISR

DNK

SVN

AND

AUT

ISL

SWE

NLD

DEU

LUX

MCO CHE

- €

10 000 €

20 000 €

30 000 €

40 000 €

50 000 €

60 000 €

70 000 €

80 000 €

90 000 €

100 000 €

- € 50 € 100 € 150 € 200 € 250 €

6

GD

P

Budgetary effort for judicial system

AZE

UKRMDA

ARMGEOALB

MAR

TUR

MKD

RUSROU

BIH

BGR

LVALTU

GRCEST

HUN

CZE

SVK

POLHRV

PRT

- €

2 000 €

4 000 €

6 000 €

8 000 €

10 000 €

12 000 €

14 000 €

16 000 €

18 000 €

20 000 €

5 € 15 € 25 € 35 € 45 € 55 €

Budgets of the judicial systems per

capita and per capita GDP in 2016 ►Figure 2.8

7

Part of taxes and court fees in the

judicial system budget ►Figure 2.33


2016 11% 5% 16% 117% 6% 5% 20% 19% 8% 16% 9% 12%


2016 18% 8% NA 15% 43% 24% 2% 18% 20% 11% 18% 9%


2016 NA 43% 10% NA NA 10% 10% 21% 25% 10% 12% NA


2016 NA 18% 3% 1% 14% 24% 62% 37% 19% 8% 10% 13%

Average Median

2016 18% 12%

8

Legal aid ►Figures 2.32 and 2.36

Other than criminal cases

Number of States and entities which provide legal aid

Criminal cases

Representation in

court Legal advice

Costs covered

Other than criminal cases

Criminal cases

Other legal costs

Includes

coverage

or

exemption

of court

fees

Legal aid

for

enforceme

nt of

judicial

decisions

40 39

46

31

34

3139

45

9

Implemented budget of legal aid

per capita in 2016 ►Figure 2.39


2016 0,07 € 6,66 € 0,25 € 2,25 € 0,06 € 7,32 € 2,13 € 0,59 € 2,60 € 2,25 € 2,00 € 22,59 €


2016 2,91 € 16,24 € 5,06 € 0,47 € 8,23 € 0,57 € 0,12 € NA 19,61 € 3,85 € 1,03 € 1,93 €


2016 NA 0,37 € 0,31 € 9,85 € 0,23 € 27,42 € NA 0,71 € 5,85 € 0,52 € NA NA


2016 NA 1,50 € 5,64 € 36,21 € 19,07 € 0,12 € 1,28 € 0,16 € 31,00 € 29,26 € 10,18 € 0,00 €

Average Median

2016 6,96 € 2,19 €

10


and GDP per capita in 2016 ►Figure 2.44

Per

cap

ita G

DP

Budgetary effort for legal aid MARAZEALB

HUN

MKD

UKR

MNE

ARMMDA

MLT

GEO

ROU

GRC

BGR

POLLVA

TUR

SVN

LTU

CZE

BIH

CYP

AUT

HRV

EST

ITA

FRA

ESP

PRT

AND

BELDEU

MCO

ISR

FIN

CHE

IRL

DNK

NLD

UK:SCOUK:ENG&WAL

SWE

- €

10 000 €

20 000 €

30 000 €

40 000 €

50 000 €

60 000 €

70 000 €

80 000 €

- € 5,00 € 10,00 € 15,00 € 20,00 € 25,00 € 30,00 € 35,00 € 40,00 €

11

Per

cap

ita G

DP

Budgetary effort for legal aid


and GDP per capita in 2016 ►Figure 2.44

MARAZEALB

HUN

MKD

UKR

MNE

ARM

MDA

MLT

GEO

ROU

GRC

BGR

POL

LVA

TUR

SVN

LTU

CZE

BIH

CYP

HRV

EST

- €

5 000 €

10 000 €

15 000 €

20 000 €

25 000 €

- € 0,50 € 1,00 € 1,50 € 2,00 € 2,50 € 3,00 € 3,50 €

12

Number of cases per 100 000 inhabitants for

which legal aid is granted and amount of the

budget allocated to per case in 2016 ►Figures 2.49 and 2.46

All cases Only brought to court cases


Nb of cases NA NA 335 234 301 NA 827 642 NA NA NA NA

Budget per case NA NA 74 € 963 € 21 € NA 257 € 92 € NA NA NA NA


Nb of cases NA NA 1231 NA NA NA 139 NA 1772 581 NA 3002

Budget per case NA NA 370 € NA NA NA 83 € NA 1 107 € 663 € NA 64 €


Nb of cases NA 210 1401 2149 228 2159 1447 NA 1503 417 NA NA

Budget per case NA 175 € 22 € 458 € 101 € 1 270 € NA NA 389 € 124 € NA NA

SVK SVN ESP SWE CHE MKD TUR UKRU K :E N G &

W A LUK:SCO ISR MAR

Nb of cases NA 356 NA NA NA NA 177 832 2340 3535 NA 9

Budget per case NA 420 € NA NA NA NA 721 € 20 € 1 325 € 828 € NA 49 €

Average Median

Nb of cases 658 429

Budget per case 489 € 175 €

13

Professional judges

per 100 000 inhabitants in 2016 ►Table 3.6


2016 12,6 35,6 7,7 27,4 5,2 14,1 28,9 31,8 43,3 13,1 28,4 6,5


2016 17,6 19,4 10,4 7,5 24,2 25,8 28,7 15,7 3,5 10,6 25,5 27,3


2016 31,7 10,2 11,8 98,5 51,3 13,6 10,6 26,0 19,3 23,6 18,0 38,5


2016 24,1 42,6 11,5 11,8 14,9 27,3 14,1 14,6 3,0 3,7 8,5 8,4

Average Median

2016 21,5 17,8

14

Professional judges

per 100 000 inhabitants in 2016 ►Tables 3.6 and 3.45

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Georgia

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Iceland

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

FRA

MCOAND

ESP

PRT

MLT

SMR

ITA

GRC

CYP

TUR

BGR

ROU

MDA

SRB

MKD

ALB

MNE

BIH

HRV

SVN

HUN

AUTCHE LIE

LUX

DEU

CZE

POL

UKR

GEOAZE

ARM

RUSLTU

LVA

EST

FIN

SWE

NOR

ISL

UK:ENG&WAL

UK:SCO

UK:NIR

IRL

BEL

NLD

DNK

SVK

ISR

g

g g gg g g g

g

g g g g

g

g

gg g g

g

g g

g g

g g gg g

g

g gg g

g g

g g

g g

g g

g

g g

g g

g g g

g g

g g

g

MAR

g g

g

Occasional professional judges

Non-professional judges

Rechtspfleger

Apart from professional judges

5-

10 0-5 na

10-

15

15-

20 20+

15

Average gross salaries of judges in relation

with national average gross salary in 2016 ►Table 3.21

Recruit of judges among experienced legal experts


Beginning 2,1 2,7 4,3 1,6 4,0 1,7 3,0 3,2 1,9 3,4 2,5 2,9

Supreme Court 3,4 4,0 8,1 4,0 6,1 3,0 5,2 5,6 4,1 6,1 5,6 4,9


Beginning 3,0 1,5 1,3 NA 0,9 2,0 1,6 2,0 3,1 1,9 1,9 2,5

Supreme Court 3,9 3,2 3,4 NA 1,6 5,4 3,6 2,6 5,0 6,4 3,7 3,8


Beginning 1,3 4,0 2,8 1,1 2,3 1,3 2,1 NA 2,2 4,1 3,1 2,4

Supreme Court 2,6 4,4 4,7 2,3 4,3 NA 3,3 NA 5,3 8,3 NA 5,7


W A LUK:SCO ISR MAR

Beginning 3,0 1,7 2,1 1,7 2,0 2,8 NA 3,1 3,7 4,0 3,9 1,7

Supreme Court 4,4 3,3 5,4 3,2 4,6 3,5 NA 4,0 7,5 6,2 5,6 3,7

Average Median

Beginning 2,5 2,3

Supreme Court 4,5 4,3

16

Distribution of professional judges by

gender and by instance in 2016 ►Figure 3.14

Total

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

47%

43%

50%

63%

53%

57%

50%

37%

17

Distribution by gender of 1st instance

professional judges in 2016 ►Figure 3.14


Men 49% 29% 75% 48% 88% 46% 37% NA 27% 50% 33% 44%

Women 51% 71% 25% 52% 12% 54% 63% NA 73% 50% 67% 56%


Men 30% 44% 33% 51% NA 27% 28% 58% 64% 43% 19% 35%

Women 70% 56% 67% 49% NA 73% 72% 42% 36% 57% 81% 65%


Men 34% 50% 53% 40% 42% 39% 56% 36% 33% 28% NA 30%

Women 66% 50% 47% 60% 58% 61% 44% 64% 67% 72% NA 70%


W A LUK:SCO ISR MAR

Men 37% 18% 40% 51% 54% 39% 58% NA NA 74% 45% 68%

Women 63% 82% 60% 49% 46% 61% 42% NA NA 26% 55% 32%

Average Median

Men 43% 40%

Women 57% 60%

18

Distribution of court presidents by

gender and instance ►Figure 3.16

Total

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

66%

61%

71%

75%

34%

39%

29%

25%

19

Distribution by gender of court

presidents (all instances) in 2016 ►Figure 3.16


Men 68% 100% 100% 61% 96% 63% 54% NA 49% 60% 61% 66%

Women 32% NAP 0% 39% 4% 37% 46% NA 51% 40% 39% 34%


Men 56% 77% 63% 88% NA NA 45% 78% 60% 66% 30% 58%

Women 44% 23% 37% 12% NA NA 55% 22% 40% 34% 70% 42%


Men 57% 100% 71% 63% 68% 63% 68% 50% NA 31% 66% 46%

Women 43% 0% 29% 38% 32% 38% 32% 50% NA 69% 34% 54%


W A LUK:SCO ISR MAR

Men 57% 37% 86% 60% NA 59% 86% NA NAP 100% 60% 91%

Women 43% 65% 14% 40% NA 41% 14% NA NAP 0% 40% 9%

Average Median

Men 66% 63%

Women 35% 38%

20

Prosecutors per 100 000 inhabitants in

2016 ►Table 3.25


2016 11,2 6,8 10,6 4,1 11,3 7,6 10,9 21,3 14,6 13,7 11,7 12,1


2016 13,0 6,8 2,9 11,8 6,7 5,5 19,2 20,7 2,2 3,5 22,9 24,4


2016 8,0 4,1 19,2 13,3 16,6 5,4 13,8 15,2 14,5 13,4 25,2 8,8


2016 17,1 10,5 5,3 9,6 10,4 8,3 6,0 23,8 3,6 8,7 14,2 2,8

Average Median

2016 11,7 11,0

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Georgia

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Iceland

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

FRA

MCOAND

ESP

PRT

MLT

SMR

ITA

GRC

CYP

TUR

BGR

ROU

MDA

SRB

MKD

ALB

MNE

BIH

HRV

SVN

HUN

AUTCHE LIE

LUX

DEU

CZE

POL

UKR

GEOAZE

ARM

RUSLTU

LVA

EST

FIN

SWE

NOR

ISL

UK:ENG&WAL

UK:SCO

UK:NIR

IRL

BEL

NLD

DNK

SVK

ISR

g g

g gg g

g g

g g

g

g g

gg g

g g

g g

g g g g

g

g g

g

g g g

g g

g g

g g

g g

g g

g gg g

g g

g g g

g gg g

g

g gg

g

g g

g

g

g g

g g

g g

g g

g

g

g g

g

g g

MAR

g g

g g g

g21

Prosecutors

per 100 000 inhabitants in 2016 ►Tables 3.21 and 3.24

5-

10 0-5 na

10-

15

15-

20 20+

Statutorily independent

Under the Ministry of Justice or another

central authority

Other

Regulation to prevent specific instructions

to prosecute or not, addressed to a

prosecutor in a court

Status of prosecutors

22

Average gross salaries of prosecutors in

relation with national average gross salary

in 2016 ►Table 3.38


Beginning 2,1 2,7 2,4 1,7 1,0 1,7 3,0 3,2 1,9 1,5 2,2 1,2

Highest instance 2,6 4,0 NAP 4,0 3,3 3,1 5,2 5,6 4,1 NAP 4,8 2,1


Beginning 1,6 1,2 1,3 NA 0,9 2,0 1,6 NA 0,8 1,9 1,9 2,2

Highest instance 3,9 NAP 3,4 NA 1,6 5,4 3,3 2,0 NAP 6,4 2,3 3,2


Beginning 1,3 1,8 2,3 1,1 2,4 1,2 1,2 NA 2,2 4,1 NA 2,3

Highest instance 2,6 NAP 2,7 2,3 4,2 1,7 2,0 NA 5,3 6,2 NA 4,9


W A LUK:SCO ISR MAR

Beginning 2,9 1,7 2,1 1,3 1,7 2,9 NA 1,7 1,2 0,9 1,0 1,7

Highest instance 4,4 2,8 5,0 2,5 2,4 3,2 NA 4,4 NAP NA 3,4 3,7

Average Median

Beginning 2,5 2,3

Highest instance 4,5 4,3

23

Roles and power of prosecutors in 2016

(number of States) ►Figures 3.26 and 3.27

38

33

35

43

46

38

45

24

42

24

23

34

25

17

to conduct or supervise police investigation

to conduct investigations

when necessary, to request investigation measuresfrom the judge

to charge

to present the case in court

to propose a sentence to the judge

to appeal

to supervise the enforcement procedure

to discontinue a case without needing a decision by ajudge

to end the case by imposing or negotiating a penalty ormeasure without requiring a judicial decision

other significant powers

Role in civil cases

Role in administrative cases

Role in insolvency cases

24

Other persons with duties similar to

those of prosecutors in 2016

(number of States) ►Table 3.31

28

25

Workload of prosecutors in 2016 ►Table 3.29


Number /100 000 inhab. 11,2 6,8 10,6 4,1 11,3 7,6 10,9 21,3 14,6 13,7 11,7 12,1

Cases received /100 inhab. 1,5 6,5 0,1 5,9 NA NA 1,9 1,8 1,7 NA 2,3 3,0

Roles 11 9 9 10 9 12 12 13 12 7 12 7


Number /100 000 inhab. 13,0 6,8 2,9 11,8 6,7 5,5 19,2 20,7 2,2 3,5 22,9 24,4

Cases received /100 inhab. NA 1,5 7,5 1,2 6,3 NA 1,9 2,0 0,3 5,2 0,7 2,7

Roles 10 6 13 10 10 10 14 9 6 8 13 13


Number /100 000 inhab. 8,0 4,1 19,2 13,3 16,6 5,4 13,8 15,2 14,5 13,4 25,2 8,8

Cases received /100 inhab. 9,7 NA 1,9 6,2 1,5 1,1 6,5 2,3 4,3 3,5 0,6 1,6

Roles 12 6 11 14 12 12 8 11 13 12 6 11

SVK SVN ESP SWE CHE MKD TUR UKRU K :E N G

& W A LUK:SCO ISR MAR

Number /100 000 inhab. 17,1 10,5 5,3 9,6 10,4 8,3 6,0 23,8 3,6 8,7 14,2 2,8

Cases received /100 inhab. 1,4 3,3 NA 4,6 6,9 1,4 4,2 NA 0,9 3,6 4,0 4,2

Roles 13 11 11 8 10 7 11 10 5 8 11 12

Average Median

Number /100 000 inhab. 11,7 11,0

Cases received /100 inhab. 3,1 2,2

26

Non-judge staff per professional judge in

2016 ►Table 3.43


2016 2,5 4,1 10,1 2,3 5,1 3,2 3,1 2,7 3,2 3,9 3,2 4,4


2016 3,8 2,0 3,2 5,1 2,7 1,5 2,8 1,1 6,0 3,3 3,1 3,5


2016 1,1 8,5 4,4 1,2 3,0 3,1 1,6 4,3 2,8 2,2 3,7 3,5


2016 3,4 3,8 9,2 4,1 3,6 3,9 NA 3,8 9,0 7,7 5,2 3,2

Average Median

2016 3,9 3,4

27

Non-judge staff per professional judge in

2016 ►Tables 3.43 and 3.45

Rechtspfleger

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Georgia

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Iceland

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

FRA

MCOAND

ESP

PRT

MLT

SMR

ITA

GRC

CYP

TUR

BGR

ROU

MDA

SRB

MKD

ALB

MNE

BIH

HRV

SVN

HUN

AUTCHE LIE

LUX

DEU

CZE

POL

UKR

GEOAZE

ARM

RUSLTU

LVA

EST

FIN

SWE

NOR

ISL

UK:ENG&WAL

UK:SCO

UK:NIR

IRL

BEL

NLD

DNK

SVK

ISR

g

gg

g

gg

g

g

g

gg

g

g

g

g

gg

MAR

0-3 na 3-5 5+

28

Non-prosecutor staff per public prosecutor

in 2016 ►Table 3.50


2016 NA 0,8 0,5 1,0 NA 3,0 1,8 NA 1,6 0,6 1,2 0,5


2016 0,6 0,4 NA 0,9 2,1 2,7 1,4 NA 0,8 4,1 0,9 0,8


2016 2,4 1,2 0,5 1,4 1,8 4,0 NA 1,3 1,1 1,2 NA 2,0


2016 1,1 1,4 0,8 0,5 1,9 2,3 NA 0,4 1,6 1,9 0,7 3,7

Average Median

29

Lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants in 2016 ►Table 3.52


2016 79,4 273,6 61,9 70,2 9,5 163,7 45,6 190,1 112,9 425,0 106,9 108,5


2016 75,5 68,9 97,7 120,2 200,1 390,3 114,2 321,3 261,8 378,4 62,5 77,7


2016 403,1 301,3 56,7 93,2 134,0 102,4 147,2 125,7 295,6 118,2 49,4 128,6


W A LUK:SCO ISR MAR

2016 113,0 82,8 305,3 57,7 141,6 120,7 125,9 82,5 259,3 209,5 737,9 34,7

Average Median

2016 161,5 119,2

30

Monopoly of lawyers per instance in 2016 ►Figures 3.54, 3.55, 3.56

13

3118 13

19

30

1814

27

31

24

18

Civil cases Criminal cases -Defendant

Criminal cases -Victim

Administrativecases

Highest instance

Second instance

First instance

31

Number of all courts (geographic location)

per 100 000 inhabitants in 2016 and

variation 2014-2016 ►Tables 4.1 and 4.11


Number 1,3 4,1 0,7 1,2 1,2 2,4 2,8 2,6 4,9 2,6 0,9 0,5

Variation -7% 8% 5%


Number 1,6 1,3 1,0 0,8 1,3 3,0 1,6 3,3 2,0 1,4 2,1 2,2

Variation -5% -10% 0% 0% -3% 10% 1% -13%


Number 1,4 0,5 1,5 2,7 4,0 0,2 1,4 1,0 2,5 1,2 2,6 2,3

Variation 14% -1% NA 0% 11%



Number 1,2 3,7 1,6 1,0 3,4 1,6 0,8 1,8 0,7 NA 0,8 0,3

Variation -4% 2% 0% -18% NA 77%

Average Median

Number 1,9 1,6

32

Number of all courts (geographic location) per

100 000 inhabitants in 2016 and variation

between 2010 and 2016 ►Tables 4.1 and 4.11

Increase in the number of courts

(geographic locations) between 2010-

2016 (+15% and more)

Decrease in the number of courts

(geographic locations) between

2010-2016 (-15% and more)

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Georgia

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Iceland

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

ISRMAR

C

0-1 na 1-2 2-3 3+

33

Indices used for IT evaluation

1 2 3

Early development Ongoing development Almost completed

development

Global IT evaluation of equipment, legal

framework and governance

34

Global level of development of

information technology in courts in 2016 ►Figure 4.14


Equipment 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2

Legal framework 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2

Governanace 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2


Equipment 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 2

Legal framework 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2

Governanace 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 3 2


Equipment 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2

Legal framework 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 2 1

Governanace 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1



Equipment 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 2

Legal framework 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 1

Governanace 1 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 2

35

Sum of global IT indices in each field in 2016 ► Figure 4.14

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Georgia

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Iceland

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

ISRMAR

0-3 na 4-5 6-8 9

36

Obligation to provide information to courts users

(Number of States / entities) ►Figure 4.17

Official free of charge internet sites for general public

National

legislation

Case law of

higher courts

Other

documents

Obligation to

provide

information on

foreseeable

timeframes of

proceedings

Free-of-charge

specific

information

system

to help victims

of crime

46 4644

1442

37

Existence of surveys to measure the trust in justice

and the satisfaction with the services for: (Number of States / entities) ►Figure 4.22

42

8

6

10

10

National level Court level

Judges

2 1

108

811


Court staff

2 1

98

1012


Public prosecutors

2 1

12

7

9

11


Lawyers

52

13

10

9

14


Parties

42

9

7

6

7


Victims

38

Definition: Clearance Rate (CR)

Incoming cases

Resolved cases

Court is able to handle more cases than it receives: part of

backlog is resolved.

CR > 100%

Incoming cases

Resolved cases

Court handles fewer cases than it receives: backlog increases.

CR < 100%

39

Definition: Disposition Time (DT)

Resolved cases

Pending cases on 31 Dec. Theoretical processing capacity

of the court (during 1 year)

X 365

40

CR and DT for 1st instance civil and

commercial litigious cases in 2016 ►Table 5.5


CR (%) 99% NA 94% 102% 98% 102% 115% NA 118% NA 110% 101%

DT (days) 159 NA 188 133 25 NA 574 NA 364 NA 153 176


CR (%) 98% 125% 99% 77% 103% 99% 98% NA 59% 113% 101% 98%

DT (days) 139 252 353 242 196 610 159 NA NA 514 247 88


CR (%) 100% 107% 97% 99% 98% 101% 102% 99% 112% 102% 102% 94%

DT (days) 91 432 140 372 267 121 161 225 289 153 42 315

SVK SVN ESP SWE CHE MKD TUR UKRUK:ENG&

WALUK:SCO ISR MAR

CR (%) 132% 106% 103% 99% 101% 95% 86% 97% NA 79% 97% 103%

DT (days) 130 280 282 164 107 223 399 96 NA NA 333 86

Average Median

CR (%) 101% 100%

DT (days) 233 192

41

CR and DT of 1st instance litigious

divorce cases in 2016 ►Table 5.12


CR (%) 104% NA 99% 103% 95% 105% 96% 99% 148% 97% 105% 99%

DT (days) 97 NA 156 161 93 NA 178 154 180 202 125 137


CR (%) 109% 107% 101% 95% NA NA 98% NA 78% 85% 100% 103%

DT (days) 67 227 NA 112 NA NA 154 NA NA 511 290 28


CR (%) 130% 103% 98% 156% 104% NA NA 99% 109% 100% 101% NA

DT (days) 355 120 91 352 99 NA NA 196 163 159 33 NA


W A LUK:SCO ISR MAR

CR (%) 79% 105% 97% 99% 99% 100% 89% 97% 95% NA 102% 98%

DT (days) 208 163 298 218 280 140 318 53 NA NA 301 145

Average Median

CR (%) 102% 99%

DT (days) 180 160

42

CR and DT of administrative cases in 2016 ►Tables 5.25 and 5.26


CR (%) 98% NA 109% 91% 91% 121% 118% 104% 109% 113% 80% NAP

DT (days) 115 NA 242 380 105 429 339 108 319 1582 421 NAP


CR (%) 106% 79% 99% 108% 92% 148% 100% NA NAP 153% 95% 144%

DT (days) 108 279 314 101 375 1086 109 NA NAP 925 217 72


CR (%) 98% 114% 104% NA 88% 95% NA 103% 112% 92% 100% 89%

DT (days) NA 1464 155 NA 240 178 NA 143 911 170 6 539


W A LUK:SCO ISR MAR

CR (%) 112% 87% 112% 100% 101% 94% 98% 87% 90% NA 100% 100%

DT (days) 203 282 312 108 180 370 150 138 383 NA 101 89

Average Median

CR (%) 102% 99%

DT (days) 180 160

43

Cases handled by public prosecutors in

2016 ►Table 5.40


Dismissed 82% NAP 158% 81% NA NA 16% 94% 44% NA 68% 15%

Concluded by penalty* NAP NA NAP 4% NAP NA 21% NAP 0% NA 8% 29%

Charged before court 31% NA 81% 13% NA NA 20% 27% 26% NA 29% 82%

Total 113% NA 239% 98% NA NA 58% 121% 71% NA 105% 125%


Dismissed NA 32% 66% 51% 59% NA 14% 12% 35% 70% 8% 38%

Concluded by penalty* NA 1% 12% 26% 3% NA 6% NA NA 0% 12% NAP

Charged before court NA 64% 12% 33% 19% NA 86% 83% 51% 17% 70% 44%

Total NA 97% 90% 110% 82% NA 106% NA NA 88% 89% 82%


Dismissed 37% NAP 19% 59% 35% 22% 44% 34% NA 76% 0% 59%

Concluded by penalty* NA NAP 11% 6% 8% 22% 21% 16% NA 13% NAP 22%

Charged before court 20% NA 22% 20% 38% 55% 22% 31% 11% 7% 94% 37%

Total NA NA 51% 85% 81% 99% 87% 82% NA 96% 94% 118%


W A LUK:SCO ISR MAR

Dismissed 34% 25% NAP 37% 17% 36% 32% NA 10% 26% 34% 35%

Concluded by penalty* 3% 3% NA 13% 80% 2% NA NAP NAP 26% 0% 15%

Charged before court 34% 15% NA 39% 2% 61% 21% NA 107% NA 47% 38%

Total 71% 42% NA 89% 100% 98% NA NA 117% NA 81% 88%

44

CR and DT of 1st instance criminal cases in

2016 ►Tables 5.46 and 5.47


CR (%) 104% NA 99% 103% 95% 105% 96% 99% 148% 97% 105% 99%

DT (days) 97 NA 156 161 93 NA 178 154 180 202 125 137


CR (%) 109% 107% 101% 95% NA NA 98% NA 78% 85% 100% 103%

DT (days) 67 227 NA 112 NA NA 154 NA NA 511 290 28


CR (%) 130% 103% 98% 156% 104% NA NA 99% 109% 100% 101% NA

DT (days) 355 120 91 352 99 NA NA 196 163 159 33 NA


W A LUK:SCO ISR MAR

CR (%) 79% 105% 97% 99% 99% 100% 89% 97% 95% NA 102% 98%

DT (days) 208 163 298 218 280 140 318 53 NA NA 301 145

Average Median

CR (%) 102% 99%

DT (days) 180 160

45

CR of civil and commercial litigious cases

in all instances in 2016 ► Tables 5.7, 5.16 and 5.20


1st instance 99% NA 94% 102% 98% 102% 115% NA 118% NA 110% 101%

2nd instance NA NA 103% NA 95% 110% 95% NA 116% NAP 102% 109%

Highest instance NA NAP 101% NA 91% 111% 109% 97% NA NA 98% 93%


1st instance 98% 125% 99% 77% 103% 99% 98% NA 59% 113% 101% 98%

2nd instance 106% 119% 95% 99% 101% 75% 100% NAP 82% 111% 96% 101%

Highest instance 93% 107% 105% 96% NA NA 86% NA 190% 92% 146% 95%


1st instance 100% 107% 97% 99% 98% 101% 102% 99% 112% 102% 102% 94%

2nd instance 106% 106% 99% 97% NA NA NA 96% 97% 106% 100% 92%

Highest instance 100% NAP 101% 120% 104% NA NA 104% 99% 126% 102% 84%


W A LUK:SCO ISR MAR

1st instance 132% 106% 103% 99% 101% 95% 86% 97% NA 79% 97% 103%

2nd instance 125% 100% 98% 103% 102% 111% 77% 100% NA NA 98% NA

Highest instance NA 102% 84% 106% 98% 101% 69% NA NA NAP 98% 88%

46

DT of civil and commercial litigious cases

in all instances in 2016 ►Tables 5.8, 5.17 and 5.21


1st instance 159 NA 188 133 25 NA 574 NA 364 NA 153 176

2nd instance NA NA 60 NA 72 NA 462 NA 328 NAP 69 141

Highest instance NA NAP 49 NA 70 464 368 172 NA NA 179 207


1st instance 139 252 353 242 196 610 159 NA NA 514 247 88

2nd instance 95 150 487 153 245 1 149 121 NAP NA 993 124 103

Highest instance 132 165 376 126 NA NA 203 NA 219 1 442 153 184


1st instance 91 432 140 372 267 121 161 225 289 153 42 315

2nd instance 553 783 100 435 NA NA NA 105 114 131 31 180

Highest instance 276 NAP 27 198 35 NA NA 180 58 170 48 290


W A LUK:SCO ISR MAR

1st instance 130 280 282 164 107 223 399 96 NA NA 333 86

2nd instance 121 97 181 100 97 111 109 54 NA NA 205 NA

Highest instance NA 150 513 112 128 350 437 125 NA NAP 182 455

47

Cases older than two years in 2016 ►Table 5.65

BIH 16%

GEO 2%

HUN 0%

LTU 0%

MDA 0%

MCO 5%

ROU 5%

RUS 0%

SRB 71%

SVN 1%

SWE 1%

CHE 2%

TUR 4%

ISR 10%

AUT 0,4%

AZE 1,8%

BIH 29,7%

EST 0,2%

GEO 0,7%

ITA 48,2%

LVA 0,0%

LTU 0,4%

MDA 1,5%

MCO 2,2%

ROU 0,6%

SVN 0,0%

SWE 15,4%

CHE 7,8%

ISR 7,6%

AUT 14%

AZE 1%

BIH 45%

HRV 33%

EST 2%

GEO 2%

LTU 6%

MDA 8%

MCO 22%

PRT 30%

ROU 4%

SRB 18%

SVN 23%

SWE 3%

CHE 7%

TUR 22%

ISR 15%

First instance Second instance Highest instance

48

CR and DT of cases relating to asylum

seekers and cases relating to right of

entry and stay for aliens in 2016 ►Table 5.38

AUT 99% 63

AZE NAP NAP

BEL 90% 174

BIH 75% 122

EST 100% 16

FIN 34% 769

FRA 107% NA

GEO 63% 394

GRC 207% 330

HUN 105% 40

LTU NA NA

LUX 90% NA

MDA 167% 1424

MCO ..

ROU 101% 157

SVN 97% 39

ESP 95% 434

SWE 62% 280

93% 371

95% 231

Average

Median

AUT 66% 387

AZE 143% 37

BEL 148% 502

BIH 75% 119

EST 84% 168

FIN 120% 205

FRA 99% NA

GEO 52% NA

GRC 508% 886

HUN 96% 120

LTU 101% 88

LUX 155% NA

MDA 96% 80

MCO 100% 365

ROU 99% 128

SVN 110% 232

ESP 111% 186

SWE 91% 84

125% 239

100% 168Average

Median

49

CEPEJ-STAT update

http://www.coe.int/cepej/

50

Keep in touch

http://www.coe.int/cepej/

CEPEJ Council of Europe

@CEPEJ_CoE

CEPEJ 2018 Eval PowerPoint Presentation - rm.coe.int

Documents

Transcript of CEPEJ 2018 Eval PowerPoint Presentation - rm.coe.int