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

1. Project “Courts of Justice in Estonia – part of the power structure worth obserivng” TI-Estonia Tallinn, 16.12.2008

2. Financers Project is financed by NGO Fund. The support of EEA and Norwegian financial mechanisms to Estonian NGOs is intermediated by Open Estonia Foundation.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. Questionnaire and methodology I I. 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

10. 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)

11. 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.

12. Analysis of visitors 1. Education

13. Analysis of visitors 2. Age

14. Analysis of visitors 3. Previous visits to court

15. Analysis of visitors 4. Previous visiting status

16. Type of court session visited Analysis of the results

17. Analysis of the results 2. Change in opinion of courts (post visiting)

18. Analysis of the results 3. Were the participants of the procedure treated equally by the judge

19. 4.Is the structure of Estonian judicial system just Analysis of the results

20. 5.Does Estonian judicial system need a missing oversight mechanism Analysis of the results

21. 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 %

22. 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 (%)

23. 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 % Yes/No questions (%)

24. Percentage of the survey group satisfaction Percentage of the survey group satisfaction based on visits

25. 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 %

26. 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

27. Negative opinions of visitors 1.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.

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. TI-Estonia opinion II 4. 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 thatand 6 % NO. Following the fact that 35% is not completely convinced, additional attention should be paid to that.

31. 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.

32. 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.

33. Transparency International-Estonia Thank You Information: www.transparency.ee Contact: info@transparency.ee