1 Report on European judicial systems Presentation of the main results Edition 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 th 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 concerned  Important differences: history, political and judicial organisation, size, wealth, …

7 Level 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 %) Armenia % Estonia % Hungary % Italy % Iceland % Moldova % Montenegro % Sweden % UK-Scotland % 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 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 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 - .

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 Resolution  Majority 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 inhabitants has decreased.

20 Number of public prosecutors per 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 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 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 2010, in days

25 Clearance rate and disposition time  Efficient 1st instance civil courts: Russian Federation, Azberbaijan, Austria, Norway, Czech Republic, Switzerland, Hungary  Improvements: 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 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 inhabitants

31 Conclusions  Success !  dynamic process of evaluating European judicial systems  Next evaluation has already started !

32 On-going Translations in Romanian and Turkish Report can be downloaded from the CEPEJ website