1. 1 Report on European judicial systems Presentation of the main results Edition 2010 (data 2008)

2. 2 Aims - qualitative and quantitative information on the daily functioning of judicial systems - exchange of knowledge - comparison of judicial systems

3. 3  Report is the base of CEPEJ‘s work !

4. 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. 5 Interprete and analyse data with caution  read comments on particularities of systems No ranking of best judicial systems

6. 6 Report presents data of 2008 4 th report (previous reports 2004, 2006 and 2008)  presentation of some evolution and 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. 7 Level of popu- lation and per capita GDP

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

9. 9 Country Total annual approved budget allocated to the whole justice system (in €) Evolution between 2006 and 2008 (in %) 20062008 Armenia 8 851 16214 622 03065.2 % Estonia 68 795 556118 251 76271.9 % Hungary 600 700 0001 787 400 000197.6 % Italy 7 819 041 0687 278 169 362-6.9 % Iceland 24 400 00019 008 821-22.1 % Moldova 20 390 09735 686 05075% Montenegro 18 670 10437 358 769100.1 % Sweden 3 083 500 0003 033 863 752-1.6 % UK-Scotland 3 095 384 0361 785 097 305-42.3 % 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. 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. 11 Legal aid Annual public budget allocated to legal aid per inhabitant in 2008

12. 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. 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. 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. 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. 16 Performance and quality targets defined 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. 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. 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. 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. 20 Number of public prosecutors per 100.000 inhabitants  Highest number in Central and Eastern European states

21. 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. 22 CR of civil litigious and non-litigious cases in 2008  very good performan- ces for 12 countries (many Eastern states)

23. 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. 24 Disposition time of litigious and non-litigious civil (and commercial) cases in 1st instance courts in 2008, in days

25. 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. 26 Litigious divorce cases: average length of proceedings at first instance courts between 2004 and 2008, in days

27. 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. 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. 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. 30 Number of notaries per 100.000 inhabitants

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

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