Project “Courts of Justice in Estonia – part of the power structure worth obserivng”

TI-Estonia

Tallinn, 16.12.2008

Financers

Project is financed by NGO Fund.

The support of EEA and Norwegian financial mechanisms to Estonian NGOs is intermediated by Open Estonia Foundation.

Objectives 1. Primary aim of the project is to create an independent

mechanism and methodology to monitor judicial system as a separate authority and to propose amendments of it through  civil society.

2. Secondary objective of the project is to conduct an initial independent analysis of corruption cases and the authorities that treat them (mainly, but not only courts) and ascertainment of the spheres that need more thorough treatment independent from governmental institutions.

The project commences in April 2008 and lasts until September 2009.

Project is conducted by non-profit organization Corruption Free Estonia with Voluntary Action Developing Centre as a partner.

Motivation I - Citizens and third sector organizations have paid their

attention to the activity of legislative and executive power, but judicial power has been neglected. Access to the judicial system, practical aspects of its functioning such as transparency and simplicity of use are primary concerns that affect the individual’s chance to protect ones rights.

As in public administration generally, the question concerning the applicability of good administrative practice must be raised.

Motivation II

Analysis of corruption cases

Simultaneously with enforcement of new Anti-Corruption Act new regulations in criminal law were adopted to investigate corruption and new definitions of corruption were created. These norms were in force until adoption of new Penal Code Act and Code of Criminal Procedure and relatively good practice to investigate and proceed corruption crimes evolved. New regulations enforced in 2002 and 2004 substantially changed the definitions, ivestigation and proceeding of corruption crimes in court.

Aim targets I I. Aim targets of the first field of the project are people using

judicial system, civil servants who administer judicial system, judiciary officials, judges and the media.

Main activites in the first phase:

- visiting judicial institutions and monitoring their everyday work by independent and anonymous persons and filling in the questionnaires.

- analyzing the data collected

The survey will be conducted twice during the project – once in the beginning and also in the final phase.  Methods developed in the project are used in the future to evaluate citizen-friendliness of judicial system periodically

Aim Targets II

II. The second part is aimed at lawmakers, judges, investigators and prosecutors, but also to the media and the public.

Main activities in the second phase:

- mapping of adjudications made after implementation of new anti corruption law. 

- The information on corruption related crimes proceeded is gathered and initial overall analysis of corruption cases, opening of procedure and general course is made. This will provide us with information how corruption cases are dealt with in judicial systems.

Final beneficiaries

Beneficiaries are citizens whose opinion of functioning of the judicial system will reach decision makers and judges. 

Beneficiary is also the conductor of the project who develops new mechanisms, methods and networks for further activities, furthermore, it creates inter organizational base to develop independent competence centre in this field.

Questionnaire and methodology II. Relevant questionnaire was developed in April-May 2008

• Questionnaire is based on previous studies carried out to evaluate the quality and amity of courts and is carried by the idea of monitoring courts from the citizen point of view.

• One part of the questionnaire is interviews with the participants of judicial procedure and their representatives

Questionnaire and methodology II

Questionnaire is divided into five sections:

• I section is about the person filling in the form and ones previous opinion of Estonian court system. 8 questions

• II part is on how the volunteer managed to aquire an information about the hearings (place, time ect.). 6 questions

• III part is about the court house.17 questions

• IV part is dealing with the hearing. 34 questions

• V consists of three questions for the participants of judicial procedure (also representatives)

Visiting courts and court sessions May-April 2008

• Visiting and monitoring courts by independent and anonymous persons. Filling in the questionnaires and interviewing participants of the procedure.

• Visitors were mainly students (first of all law and social sciences) and volunteers

At the date of 31st of October 244 court sessions were monitored

Following courts were visited: Tartu County Court (Tartu, Jõgeva, Põlva, Võru courts), Harju County Court (various courts), Viru County Court (Jõhvi, Kohtla-Järve, Narva, Rakvere courts), Pärnu County Court (Pärnu, Haapsalu, Rapla, Paide, Haapsalu, Kuressaare courts), Tartu District Court, Tallinn District Court, Tallinn Administrative Court, Jõhvi District Court.

Analysis of visitors

1. Education4%

10%

8%

41%24%

12% 1% Secondary education being acquired

Secondary education

Subprofessional education

Higher education being acquired

Higher education

Not mentioned

Vocational education

Analysis of visitors2. Age

5

13 129

16

6 63 2

51

41 1 1 2 3

1

6

02468

1012141618

Analysis of visitors3. Previous visits to court

Analysis of visitors4. Previous visiting status

Analysis of the results

1. Type of court session visited

Analysis of the results

2. Change in opinion of courts (post visiting)

Analysis of the results

3. Were the participants of the procedure treated equally by the judge

Analysis of the results

4.Is the structure of Estonian judicial system just

Analysis of the results

5. Does Estonian judicial system need a missing oversight mechanism

YES/NO questions (%)

1. Was there a rise in your confidence to the

court system after this visit

Yes 30% No 70%

2. Could an interested person have gotten

some useful information

Yes 77 % No 23%

3. Was there something clearly disturbing at

the hearing

Yes 44% No 56 %

4. Was the verdict clear (if announced)

Yes 78% No 22%

5. Did the judge seem to be impartial

Yes 95 % No 5 %

6. Did the judge treat parties of the

procedure equally

Yes 99% No 1 %

7. Was there any breaks held and

schedule followed

Yes 48% No 52 %

8. Was there a need for translation

Yes 24 % No 76 %

Yes/No questions (%)

9. Was the translation understandable

Yes 63 % No 37 %

10. Were the statements of

judge/participants of the procedure

clear

Yes 89 % No 11%

11. Was the initial scheldule issued by

the judge

Yes 1% No 99 %

12. Was the outline provided by the

judge sufficient

Yes 73 % No 27 %

13. Did the hearing start in time

Yes 55 % No 45 %

14. If not, was there a reason provided

Yes 54 % No 46 %

Yes/No questions (%)

15. Were the spectators informed about

the delay

Yes 25 % No 75 %

16. Was the information found sufficient

to visit the hearing

Yes 97 % No 3 %

17. Was the verbal information given

politely (if used)

Yes 88 % No 12 %

18. Was there a compulsory security service

Yes 26 % No 74 %

19. Did you require any assistance in the

court

Yes 83 % No 17 %

20. Was there an information desk in the

court

Yes 83 % No 17 %

21. Did you get additionally in contact with

the court

Yes 16 % No 84 %

Percentage of the survey group satisfaction based on visits

Percentage of the survey group satisfaction

Yes/No questions to be pointed out

1.Was there anything disturbing at the hearing Yes 44% No 56 %

2. Was there any breaks kept and schedule followed

Yes 48% No 52 %

3. Was the initial schedule provided by the judge Yes 1% No 99 %

4. Did the hearing start in time Yes 55 % No 45 %

5. If not, was there a reason provided Yes 54 % No 46 %

6. Were the spectators informed about the delay Yes 25 % No 75 %

Was there anything clearly disturbing at the hearing

Yes 44% No 56 %1. Everybody spoke so fast that the subject matter remained

incomprehensible

2. Terminology was difficult and not easy to follow

3. Bad translation and repercussion made it impossible to understand the translation

4. It seemed that the participants and judge are not focused on the hearing. In some cases judge was agressive with the participant of the procedure

5. There was a disorder in the court (phonecalls etc.)

6. Things were not explained enough or repeated too many times

Negative opinions of visitors1. At first I was afraid to go to court. It was scaring

2. Too many first instance sentences are appealed

3. There are 2 kinds of judges – friendly ones and arrogant. Too many things are missed in the first instance

4. Some verdicts seem strange, but there must be an explanation not fully understandable for ordinary people. Judicial system seems more or less fine, but not perfect.

Positive opinions of visitors

1. Cosy houses, judges are humane, impartial

2. Very honourable. Going to the court I believed that the verdict will be just

3. Judges are fair in criminal cases

4. I trust the judges, because I think they are just in their position

5. I believe in competence and capability of courts

6. The judges are experienced and usually make decisions acceptable for public.

TI-Estonia opinion I

1. Accessibility to hearings related information – there is no problem finding the information regarding hearings. Information in sufficient and understandable.

2. Courts – clean and tidy. It was pointed out that information from the information desks was sometimes inaccurate.

3. Hearings – problem with delays and postponing (45%), spectators and parties of procedure are left unnoticed of the delays (75%) reasons for delays are not provided (45%). These percents also include the hearing that are canceled.

TI-Estonia believes that postponing of hearings without any apparent reason might jeopardize the constitutional requirement of publicity of hearings, because it can hinder the participation of spectators.

TI-Estonia opinion II4. Change in opinion of courts (post visiting) - 65% remained the same 29%

improved

5. In 24% of cases the translation was necessary – sometimes the spectators had difficulties in understanding the translation – this might refer to deficient translation.

TI-Estonia’s opinion is that it might jeopardize everyone’s right to be tried in his or her presence. Formal presence does not essentially guarantee the persons ability to participate in one’s trial and therefore it might harm the principal of equality in court proceedures.

6. Is the structure of Estonian judicial system just - 65 % YES, 29% this way and that and 6 % NO.

Following the fact that 35% is not completely convinced, additional attention should be paid to that.

TI-Estonia opinion III

7. Does Estonian judicial system need a missing oversight mechanism – 58% this way and that, 26% Yes.

TI- Estonia has an opinion, that hesitant standpoint might indicate different problems:

- corruption accusations have reached the highest levels of Estonian power structures and society perceives the need for oversight mechanism in all the branches of governmental power.

- first part of the project is dealing with the most public function of courts – the proceeding, but there are other functions that should be supervised.

Summary

Based on the analysis, TI-Estonia finds that the general attitude towards the judicial system is positive and court proceedings seem impartial for the spectators. Question “Were the participants of the procedure treated equally by the judge?” found 84% positive feedback.

But yet certain need for independent oversight mechanism is perceived, potentially caused by decreasing trust in state power and deficient transparency in some of the court functions.

In addition to that publicity of hearings is not fully quaranteed, because the information on postponing of hearings is not available and thus might hinder the participation at desired court sessions.

Transparency International-Estonia

Thank You

Information: www.transparency.eeContact: info@transparency.ee