Report on European judicial systems Presentation of the main results Edition 2010 (data 2008)

1. Report on European judicial systemsPresentation of the main resultsEdition 2010 (data 2008)

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 2 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 2008 • 4th report (previous reports 2004, 2006 and 2008)  presentation of some evolutionand trends ! • Based on replies received from 45 Member States (Germany and Liechtenstein absent) • About 730 million people concerned • Important differences: history, political and judicial organisation, size, wealth, …

7. Level of popu-lation and per capita GDP

8. Budget allocated to the overall justice system • General positive increase of budget between 2006-2008 • Future evolution?

9. 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)

10. Distribution of the main budgetary posts of the courts  Salaries are the highest expenditure for courts: about 70% at an european level; computeri-sation 8%, training 6%

11. Legal aid Annual public budget allocated to legal aid per inhabitant in2008

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-Scotland for instance)

13. Number of all courts (geographic locations) per 100.000 inhabitants  Highest rates: Turkey and Switzerland  Below 1 court: Netherlands, Malta, Denmark, Armenia, Czech Republic

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 targetsdefined for an individual judge and at the court level • 16 countries: targets defined for judges and at the court level • 12 countries use no targets!

17. Alternative Dispute Resolution • Majority apply at least 2 forms: Mediation and Arbitration • No Mediation in Armenia, Estonia, Georgia, San Marino • No ADR in Albania, Azerbaijan, Cyprus

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, Armenia, Russian Federation, “the former Yugoslaw Republic of Macedonia”

20. Number of public prosecutors per 100.000 inhabitants  Highest number in Central and Eastern European states

21. Clearance rate • Clearance 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 numbner of unresolved cases will rise at the end of the reporting period  creates backlogs

22. CR of civil litigious and non-litigious cases in 2008  very good performan-ces for 12 countries (many Eastern states)

23. Disposition time • Disposition 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 2008, in days

25. Clearan-ce rate and disposi-tion time • Efficient 1st instance civil courts: Azberbaijan, Austria, Norway, Czech Republic, Switzerland, Hungary, Sweden • Improvements: Georgia, Russian Federation

26. Litigious divorce cases: average length of proceedings at first instance courts between 2004 and 2008, in days

27. Lawyers Number of lawyers (with and without legal advisors) per 100.000 inhabitants in 2008 southern states have a high number of lawyers: Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal

28. Average annual variation between 2004 and 2008 Azerbaijan and Armenia: increase explained by the on-going developement of new legal and judicial systems Luxembourg, San Marino, Switzerland: develped consulting and legal activities but also small states with small number of inhabitants

29. Encorement: 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. Conclusions • Success ! • dynamic process of evaluating European judicial systems • Next evaluation has already started !

32. Report can be downloaded from the CEPEJ website http://www.coe.int/cepej On-going Translations in Romanian and Turkish