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

2. 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
…..

3. 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

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

5. Duration of Austrian court proceedings
Average Duration of District court proceedings in civil law matters

6. Duration of Austrian court proceedings
Average Duration of Regional court proceedings in civil law matters

7. Duration of Austrian court proceedings
Average Duration of proceedings in criminal law matters (preliminary + main proceedings)
District Court
Regional Court

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

9. 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 ….

10. 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)

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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. Department Report: Monthly Checklist

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

18. 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

19. 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.

20. 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

21. Mandatory Annual Reports Reporting criteria - Courts

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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%

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. Thank you for your
attention!