Download - Report on European judicial systems Presentation of the main results Edition 2012 (data 2010)
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