Dealing with backlog in Austrian Justice Workshop on reduction of backlog cases 13/11/2012 – 14/11/2012 Sarajevo Veronika Bayer

Organization of the Court System Supreme Court General Procurator‘s Office 4 Courts of Appeal Court of Appeal Vienna Court of Appeal Graz Court of Appeal Linz Court of Appeal Innsbruck Office of Senior Public Prosecutors Vienna Office of Senior Public Prosecutors Graz Office of Senior Public Prosecutors Linz Office of Senior Public Prosecutors Innsbruck 4 Offices of Senior Public Prosecutors 20 Courts of Justice Regional Court for Civil- Law Cases Vienna Regional Court Klagenfurt Regional Court Wels …. Office of Public Prosecution KIagenfurt … 17 Offices of Public Prosecution 141 District Courts District Court Hietzing District Court Döbling District Court Gmünd District Court Krems District Court for Commercial Law Matters Vienna …..

Why do we need to spotlight backlog problems? Public‘s esteem of justice is strongly influenced by duration of proceedings Reduction of costs Art 6 (1) ECHR “..everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time..” Backlog indicates something going wrong due to: - Characteristics of the system - Organisational reasons - Personal reasons… Overlong trials shake public‘s trust and hurt reputation

Do court proceedings in Austria take too long? 2006: Opinion Poll

Duration of Austrian court proceedings Average Duration of District court proceedings in civil law matters 2006 -2011

Duration of Austrian court proceedings Average Duration of Regional court proceedings in civil law matters 2006 -2011

Duration of Austrian court proceedings Average Duration of proceedings in criminal law matters (preliminary + main proceedings) 2008-2011 District Court Regional Court

Overlong trials in civil law matters 2011 Trials lasting longer than 3 years

Factors influencing duration of trials The way proceedings are conducted by judges/public prosecutors Suspension of proceedings Delays caused by the parties themselves Involvement of appelate courts Involvement of court experts Judges/Public Prosecutor turnover during trials Overdue verdicts ….

Fighting backlog problems by… „ One of the essential components to assure an appropriate duration of court proceedings is the understanding of supervision by court presidents“* (*Report of audit court on duration of court proceedings in civil matters)

Fighting backlog problems by.. Prevention Controlling (monitoring systems) – currently Check and inspection – periodically Reaction Support Consequences

Fighting backlog problems by.. Prevention: Advanced trainings for judges/public prosecutors (e.g. in time management) Accompanying measures to avoid unwanted negative developments of single judges/public prosecutors Controlling (monitoring systems): Currently and independent from concrete occurrences Current supervision by the head of court/office (early warning system) Self monitoring Check and Inspection: Periodically and in cases of concrete occurrences Internal revision by superordinated authorities Mandatory annual report (reporting date 1st Oct.) Self monitoring creates a competitive element among jugdes/public prosecutors -> by reviewing IT-generated data from the Austrian ICMS: - monthly checklists (status reports) - monthly statistics containing data on workload and work ouptput

Controlling instruments – monthly statistics available for the whole court and single court departments distributed among heads of courts/offices, jugdes and public prosecutors assure internal transparency provide a good basis for causal research

Controlling instruments – monthly statistics Court performance by branches Reporting period Work load within reporting period No. of pending cases at the end of r.p. Average duration of pending cases (months) branches No. of pending cases at the beginning of reporting period No. of completed trials within reporting period No. of overlong trials

Department report: Monthly Checklist Checklists contain 24 criteria usually indicating something running slow or wrong Backlog related criteria: cases which have not been alterd in the ICMS for at least 3 months (depending on the type of proceedings) = No.9 cases with verdicts 6 months overdue = No. 12 cases with verdicts 2 months overdue = No. 13 proceedings by public prosecutor pending for more than 6 months = No. 21

Department Report: Monthly Checklist

Department Report: Monthly Checklist Summary Overview of number of cases meeting the listed criteria, summarized for one court department

Mandatory Reports - Principles By law all court presidents and chiefs of public prosecution offices (ppo) are supervising bodies, obliged to actively keep themselves informed about the work output of their court/ppo and the subordinated courts/ppos Whenever problems surface they are obliged to take or suggest remedial actions There are precise criteria on what triggers mandatory reporting The president’s/chiefs’ analysis reports have the same content structure. This creates a standardized basis for problem analysis The reporting system is focused on support for overburdened departments

Mandatory Annual Reports The Austrian ICMS identifies all overlong trials – three steps September: all judges/public prosecutors receive a „heads up“-report from the data warehouse which lists possible backlog-problems 1st October is reporting day: all overdue verdicts and overlong trials in civil and criminal matters are identified by the ICMS - chiefs of ppos and court presidents receive reports from the data warehouse. They are obliged to search for the cause of those delays and to take countermeasures or convey suggestions to their superior ppo/superior presidents. 31st December: Each judge/public prosecutor has to review his or her overlong trials/verdicts. If the overlong trials fall below certain defined limits the obligation for reporting drops.

Mandatory Annual Reports Austrian Backlog Reporting System Data Warehouse Data Warehouse Head of Court/ Chief of ppo Status Report Analysis Report Heads up Report Head of Court/ Chief of ppo Superior President/ Senior ppo Judge/ Public prosecutor Judge/ Public Prosecutor Ministry of Justice 1st September 1st October until 27th February/1st April

Mandatory Annual Reports Reporting criteria - Courts

Mandatory Annual Reports Reporting criteria - PPO St = main registry of the public prosecution office UT = charge against unknown offenders NSt = all cases of public prosecution offices which are not allocated to another registry BAZ = all criminal acts which are subject of the jurisdiction of district courts

Mandatory Annual Reports Report Summary List of overdue verdicts and overlong trials of a District Court Closing of trial to Oct. 1st (days) No.of Spotlighted cases No. of cases pending > 6 months, 1-2 years, 2-3 years, > 3 years Cases reopened No. of verdicts > 2 months overdue No. of protocols yet to be transcribed

Mandatory Annual Reports Analysis Report Without analysis data does not build a basis to blame somebody for default Head of courts/chiefs of ppo are obliged to: analyse conspicious data/numbers take or suggest reasonable/commensurate/effective actions report from an overall view, summarize noticeable problems and report about taken/suggested actions

Mandatory Annual Reports Reduction of overdue verdicts between 1st Sep. and 1st Oct. (civil law matters): 2006 1st Sep. 1st Oct reduction District courts 2.456 868 - 64,7% Regional Courts 612 255 - 58,3% 2007 2.092 688 - 67,1% 567 320 - 43,6%

Mandatory Annual Reports Reduction of overdue verdicts between 1st Sep Mandatory Annual Reports Reduction of overdue verdicts between 1st Sep. and 1st Oct. (civil matters): In September most of those overdue verdicts were dispatched, which otherwise would have been detected in the report Most verdicts are dispatched in August (no hearings in July and August) Having their sights on reporting day judges/public prosecutors put their efforts primarily on finishig overlong trials Mandatory Annual Reports are an effective instrument fighting backlog problems

Reaction Causal research (together with all authorities and persons involved, including the concerned judge/ public prosecutor) Amendment of the allocation of duties („locking“) Enhanced supervision Compilation of a catalogue of (counter-)measures

Support Support by the assignment of Further accompanying measures temporary regional judges/public prosecutors (Sprengelrichter, Sprengelstaatsanwält/innen) and Trainee judges Further accompanying measures Coaching Mentoring Advanced trainings

Consequences Description in the personnel file Consideration in the personnel review/grading of the judge/ public prosecutor by the allocation of leading positions Ultima ratio: disciplinary measures Disciplinary penalty

Disciplinary measures Overlong trials and overdue verdicts resulting from violations of duty have led to disciplinary proceedings (civil law matters): Year No. of disciplinary proceedings 2004 8 2005 6 2006 2 2007 3

Thank you for your attention!