1. INTRODUCING CASE WEIGHTING – IDENTIFYING AND OVERCOMING BARRIERS: the case of Serbia
Sonja Prostran, Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist
MDTF –JSS Support to the Supreme Court of Cassation

2. CW Definition
Weighted caseload is usually described as “the average amount of work time used for processing cases of different case categories, using different methodological approaches of weighted caseload studies results in case weights that indicate the current performance of a court”.

3. 3 attempts to introduce CW methodology in Serbia
Case weighting for commercial cases – USAID CCASA project,
Pondering of cases to determine a number of judges needed – JAS/ABA CEELI project,
Comprehensive weighted caseload study and methodology – USAID SPP project,

4. What CW Methodology can be used for?
Determination of resources:
Of judges
Additional resources, for ex. needed to reduce and eliminate the existing backlogs.
Allocation of cases:
a. Equalize the workload between judges of the same court.
b. Balance judicial workloads among courts of the same type.
3. Inform the judicial evaluation process
a. Comparing the workload of individual judges to an established workload standard will provide additional insights into the existing performance indicators.

5. Comprehensive Weighted Caseload Methodology
Key beneficiary – High Judicial Council (HJC)
HJC appoints a WG in June 2010, composed out of 12 members – judges of all courts (almost)
16 meetings and retreats
Final report to the HJC in December 2012

6. Modus operandi Individual case-time estimates (Delphi)
Timekeeping exercise: 37 courts, 400 judges
Cross-reference of the caseload statistics, timekeeping and case time estimates
Adjustments to reflect workload realities

7. WG Accomplishments Case Events Complexity Case Time
Available Work Time (a “judge-year”)
Adjustments
Calculations

8. Complexity Higher court - criminal cases - case complexity criteria
simple cases
complex cases
extremely complex cases
1 defendant
3+ defendants
5+ defendants
1-3 criminal acts
4+ expert witness testimonies
6+ witnesses
1-2 victims/witnesses
4+ victims/witnesses
5+ expert witness testimonies
1-3 expert witness testimonies
reconstruction
continuing criminal offences with 30+ acts
cases with maximum punishment over 15 years of imprisonment

9. Judge Working Day Judge Working Day Working hours available Subtract:
Working hours available
Subtract:
8.0 hours
(07:30 – 15:30)
Lunch
.5 hour
Administrative work
Reflected in case assignment reductions for Court Pres., Dep. Court Pres., etc.
Travel
For Basic Court judges in all courts (except 1st BC Belgrade); 30 % of CV case judges at .5 hours per day.
Total
.5 hours
-- .5
Total 7.5 hours
Case time per day:
7.5 hours [x 60 = 450 minutes]
Case Work Time = Case days (215) x Case time per day (450 min.) = 96,750 case work minutes per year

10. Calculations
Basic Courts (outside of Belgrade) – in excessive need of judges
Higher Courts – 0% change compared to the existing situations
Appellate Courts – excessively more than needed

11. Higher Court Calculation Template
Case Type
New Cases
Complexity
Total Time Needed
Available Judge Work Time
Judges Needed
Type
% Expressed as Decimal
# of cases
Time Standard
Total Complexity Time
Civil I Instance S
45.57%
0.0
380
96,410
0.00 C
31.34%
480 EC
23.09%
625
Civil II Instance (GZ and GZ1)
33.60%
169
96,750
64.47%
171
1.94%
296
Criminal
27.62%
382
36.19%
570
840
Criminal II Instance Panel (KV)
40.14% 95
31.54%
110
28.32%
140
Criminal Panel Adjustment (1.0 panel chair panel member panel member)
First Instance Juvenile
69.24%
244
95,400
27.59%
410
3.17%
Investigative Criminal
50.70%
435
23.29%
475
26.00%
565 -
Total

12. Lessons learned Bottom up and Up-the-bottom approach
Accurate and reliable caseload statistics
A uniform, nation-wide case management system
Raise-awareness campaign
The importance of adjustments.

13. New developments IPA 2012 Judicial Efficiency Project
Case – weighting system and organizational analysis.
Serbia 2016 Country report by the EC

14. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!
For more info:

15. Evaluation of the work of judges – monthly quotas
The quantity (efficiency) of judicial performance shall be evaluated based on the number of cases disposed by a judge over a period of one month in relation to the number of cases he should dispose – or the monthly caseload quota.
The monthly caseload quota referred to in paragraph 1 hereof shall pertain to the cases adjudicated on the merits, whereas three cases disposed of in another manner shall be regarded as one case adjudicated on the merits.
Exceptionally, five second instance criminal cases (Kž and Kž2) in higher and appellate courts are calculated as one case resolved in meritu.
In appellate courts five second instace criminal juvenile cases (Kžm2) are calculated as one case resolved in meritu.
In proceedings initiated to protect the right to a trial within reasonable time, three cases upon the request to speed up the proceedings are calculated as one case resolved in meritu.
Two cases resolved through court mediation are calculated as one case resolved in meritu.
If a judge is unable to achieve the monthly caseload quota due to an insufficient number of pending cases, the Commission shall take into account the total number of resolved cases against the total number of pending cases.
If a judge has handled cases of different types, the quantity of his performance shall be established by adding together percentages for each case type and comparing it against the monthly caseload quota for that matter, provided that Commissions shall consider all the types of disposed cases specified by the Rules of Court Procedure but not mentioned herein

18. Evaluation of the work of judges – quantity criteria
The quantity (efficiency) of judicial performance – the monthly caseload quota shall be evaluated based on the following standard:
If a judge has exceeded his monthly caseload quota by 20 percent or more – “outstandingly successful”
If a judge has achieved his monthly caseload quota, exceeded it by up to 20 percent or fallen short of it by no more than 20 percent – “successful”
If he has fallen short of his monthly caseload quota by 20 percent or more – “unsatisfactory”.
If a judge does not have a sufficient number of pending cases (eg. due to an insufficient number of incoming cases at the court), the total number of resolved cases in relation to the total number of pending cases shall be applied as the standard for evaluating the quantity (efficiency) of that judge’s performance and assessed as follows:
If he has disposed of more than 80 percent of the total number of pending cases – “outstandingly successful”
If he has disposed of between 65 and 80 percent of the total number of pending cases – “successful”
If he has disposed of less than 65 percent of cases – “unsatisfactory”.

19. Evaluation of the work of court presidents
The criteria for the evaluation of work performance of court presidents is work results of court administration.
The standard for evaluating the work performance of court presidents in respect of the work results of Court administration is the number of irregularities in the work of court administration which have not been corrected, as determined by a president of directly superior court
The grades are:
If there remained less than 5 percent of not corrected irregularities - “outstandingly successful”
If there remained between 5 and 10 percent of not corrected irregularities - “successful”
If there remained more than 10 percent of not corrected irregularities - “unsatisfactory”.
In respect of presidents of courts in which there are no more than 15 judges, their caseload quota shall be reduced by 30 percent; the caseload quota shall be reduced by 70 percent for presidents of courts in which there are between 16 and 30 judges whereas presidents of courts in which there are more than 30 judges shall not be bound by any caseload quotas. 
Vice-presidents of courts, presidents of court divisions, heads of case-law registers, judges presiding over panels in second-instance proceedings and supervisory judges in charge of training of judicial assistants and interns at the court shall be entitled to a 20 percent reduction of their caseload quota.