Judicial Statistics?

Judicial Statistics?Judicial Statistics?EurostatEuropean SourcebookCouncil of Europe – SPACE I and IICEPEJOECD FactbookEurobarometerUnited Nations – including the affiliated European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control (HEUNI)Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI)EU Crime ReportEuropean Research Group on National Reconviction Rates (ERNR)Crime Comparison - The Development of a European Crime DatabaseWorld Justice Project (WJP) and Rule of Law IndexEuro-Justis

“What people need isn’t more data, but a new mindset”

Hans Rosling, academic, statistician

TheThe

Council of Europe Council of Europe Instruments, Experience and Instruments, Experience and Judicial ReformJudicial Reform

BasicsBasicsBased on the European Based on the European Convention of Human Rights Convention of Human Rights (especially regarding Art. 6) (especially regarding Art. 6) the Council of Europe the Council of Europe providesprovides Resolution andResolution and RecommendationsRecommendationsConcerning principles of Concerning principles of judiciary and its professions, judiciary and its professions, simplification, access to simplification, access to justice, reducing workload, Ajustice, reducing workload, Alt. lt. DDis. is. RRes.es. and enforcement and enforcement

CEPEJ CEPEJ The European Commission The European Commission for the Efficiency of Justicefor the Efficiency of Justice

Your network for improved standardsYour network for improved standards

CEPEJCEPEJ TasksTasks ActivitiesActivities EvaluationEvaluation IndicatorsIndicators QualityQuality

CEPEJ – TasksCEPEJ – Tasks

Established on 18. SEP 2002Established on 18. SEP 2002 Composed of experts from all Composed of experts from all

the 47 member States of the CoE of the CoE Mission to contribute to the improvement Mission to contribute to the improvement

of the efficiency and the functioning of of the efficiency and the functioning of justice in all member states. justice in all member states.

CEPEJ – TasksCEPEJ – Tasks to analyse the results of the judicial to analyse the results of the judicial

systemssystems to identify their difficultiesto identify their difficulties to define concrete ways to improve the to define concrete ways to improve the

evaluation of their results and evaluation of their results and functioning functioning

to provide assistance at requestto provide assistance at request to propose to the competent instances to propose to the competent instances

of the Council of Europe the fields of the Council of Europe the fields where it would be desirable to where it would be desirable to elaborate a new legal instrument.elaborate a new legal instrument.

CEPEJ – TasksCEPEJ – Tasks

CEPEJ is notCEPEJ is not a monitoring or follow-up body of the a monitoring or follow-up body of the

results of the judicial systems of the results of the judicial systems of the member States,member States,

nor an institution which is competent to nor an institution which is competent to elaborate new binding legal instruments. elaborate new binding legal instruments.

CEPEJ …CEPEJ …

Prepares benchmarksPrepares benchmarks Collects and analyses dataCollects and analyses data Defines instruments of measure and means of Defines instruments of measure and means of

evaluationevaluation Adopts documents (reports, guidelines, action Adopts documents (reports, guidelines, action

plans, etc.) plans, etc.) Develops contacts with experts and researchersDevelops contacts with experts and researchers Promotes networks of legal professionalsPromotes networks of legal professionals

Activities of CEPEJ in the field of…Activities of CEPEJ in the field of…

Evaluation of Judicial Systems Evaluation of Judicial Systems Judicial time managementJudicial time management Quality of justice Quality of justice Enforcement Enforcement Mediation Mediation Targeted co-operationTargeted co-operation

CEPEJ – activitiesCEPEJ – activities on on delaysdelays Framework Programme: "A new Framework Programme: "A new

objective for judicial systems: the objective for judicial systems: the processing of each case within an processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe" optimum and foreseeable timeframe"

““Time Management Checklist“Time Management Checklist“ Report “Length of court proceedings Report “Length of court proceedings

based on the case-law of the based on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights”European Court of Human Rights”

Report “Reducing judicial time in the Report “Reducing judicial time in the countries of northern Europe”countries of northern Europe”

CEPEJ- other achievementsCEPEJ- other achievements

Setting up of a Network of pilot courts to Setting up of a Network of pilot courts to support the work of the CEPEJsupport the work of the CEPEJ

Adoption of a Medium-term activity Adoption of a Medium-term activity ProgrammeProgramme

European Day of Civil Justice, in European Day of Civil Justice, in partnership with the ECpartnership with the EC

"Crystal Scales of Justice""Crystal Scales of Justice"

CEPEJ- targeted cooperationCEPEJ- targeted cooperation

Armenia (organisation of courts)Armenia (organisation of courts) Bulgaria (workload of judges)Bulgaria (workload of judges) Croatia and Slovenia (timeframes)Croatia and Slovenia (timeframes) Malta and Switzerland (mediation)Malta and Switzerland (mediation) Netherlands (territorial jurisdiction)Netherlands (territorial jurisdiction) Russian Federation (enforcement)Russian Federation (enforcement) UK (restorative justice)UK (restorative justice) PT (dematerialization and use of IT)PT (dematerialization and use of IT) U.A.E. (performance study)U.A.E. (performance study) Montenegro (court network) Montenegro (court network)

CEPEJ – activities CEPEJ – activities on on evaluationevaluation

Report “European Judicial Report “European Judicial Systems”Systems”

For the years (2002), 2004, For the years (2002), 2004, 2006 and 20082006 and 2008

Selected dataSelected data Comments and trendsComments and trends DatabaseDatabase

CEPEJ – European Judicial SystemsCEPEJ – European Judicial Systems

Provides comparable data in crucial judicial Provides comparable data in crucial judicial issues: Budget, personnel, access to justice, issues: Budget, personnel, access to justice, legal aid, legal professions, enforcement, …legal aid, legal professions, enforcement, …

Enables quantitative and qualitative assessmentEnables quantitative and qualitative assessment Replies submitted by almost all membersReplies submitted by almost all members Scientifically analysedScientifically analysed Performance benchmarks of judicial systems Performance benchmarks of judicial systems

(Clearance rate, caseload, time of delivery)(Clearance rate, caseload, time of delivery)

Example: Annual public budget allocated to all courts (excluding prosecution and legal aid) as part(in %) of the GDP per capita, in 2008

Brazil:

1.12% of the GDP

Excluding prosecution and legal aid?

8.1

1

1.7

1.4

1.6

1.5

2.5

1.6

2.2

1.1

1.1

2

2.4

3.9

2.8

1.6

3.2

61.31.8

2.7

0.9

1.5

2.9

1.8

3

1

2.4

1.6

1.5

4.3

1.3

0.3

1.5

0.6

0.5

1.6

3.3

3.5

2.3

1.6

1.2

0.5

3.23.2

NUMBER OF COURTS (GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION)PER 100,000 INHABITANTS

From 0.3 to less than 1 (5 countries)

From 1 to less than 2 (21 countries)



From 5 to 8.1 (2 countries)

Data not supplied

Not a CoE Member State

Example: Number of all courts (geographic locations) per 100.000 inhabitants in 2008

24.2

10.1

9.1

15.5

10.7

11.3

17.4

11.3

25.9

10.2

19.2

3.5

18

5.7

28.3

33.3

14.7

6.4

3.3

3.5

28.919.9

34.1

29.2

20.8

22.5

22.3

7

25.7

6.8

17.7

14.1

6.9

13.3

15.2

32.2

42.5

12.9

12.3

53.5

39.7

12.5

37.4

27.2

8.7

60.864.3

NUMBER OF PROFESSIONAL JUDGES PER 100,000 INHABITANTS

Less than 10

From 10 to less than 15



30 and over

Data not supplied


Example: Number of profes-sional judges sitting in courts (FTE) for 100.000 inhabitants in 2008

Brazil: 8.7 judges

Example: Share of court fees (or taxes) in the court budget (as receipts) in 2008, in %

Brazil: 43.6%

2.9

3.9

3.2

9.5

3.3

2.7

1.5

3.2

4.2

2.1

3

10

3

1.8

1.3

2.7

3.6

3.52.8

3.9

5.3

7.4

7.3 3.2

3.6

3.2

4.2

4.2

2.4

4.4

3.6

3.4

3.6

3.6

1.8

5.3

2.8

4

6.5

3.5

1.3

4.4

10.6

3.12.3

NUMBER OF NON-JUDGE STAFFPER ONE PROFESSIONAL JUDGE

Less than 2 (5 countries)



5 and over (8 countries)

Data not supplied


Example: Number of non-judge staff per one profes-sional judge

Brazil: 11 civil servants per judge?

Example:Example:Clearance Clearance rate of rate of civil civil litigiouslitigious and and non-non-litigious litigious casescases in in

2008, in%2008, in%

139.2137.4

116.4116.1

110.9109.1108.2

105.1105.1

103.4102.0101.0101.0100.7100.799.399.399.199.098.897.896.996.996.396.195.795.394.894.494.394.1

92.592.2

86.081.7

73.4

114.5103.9104.7105.2

99.699.0102.2

84.4100.0

98.099.8100.0

97.399.5

68.6

99.3

102.5

95.298.1100.299.1

102.996.7

103.298.4

104.595.5

101.782.3

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

LuxembourgGeorgia

FYROMacedoniaSerbia

MontenegroSlovakiaSlovenia

San MarinoNorwayCroatia

Czech RepublicSwitzerland

Russian FederationHungary

AustriaAzerbaijan

EstoniaPortugalSweden

MaltaDenmarkLithuania

FinlandPoland

AndorraTurkey

MonacoItaly

MoldovaFrance

RomaniaBosnia & Herzegovina

AlbaniaArmenia

SpainLatvia

Civil non-litigious cases Civil litigious cases

Brazil: Brazil: Litigation Litigation 1st 1st instance instance 104.4%104.4%

Example: Number of 1st instance incoming and resolved civil (and commercial) litigious cases per100.000 inhabitants in 2008

Brasil:Litigious, 1st instance

Incoming7,857

Resolved8,206

"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat

- and wrong.“

H.L. Mencke

CEPEJ – recommends especiallyCEPEJ – recommends especially Evaluation of Judicial Systems – ReportEvaluation of Judicial Systems – Report ““Time Management Checklist“Time Management Checklist“ ““Court Quality Checklist”Court Quality Checklist” SATURN – European Uniform Guidelines SATURN – European Uniform Guidelines

for Monitoring of Judicial Timeframes for Monitoring of Judicial Timeframes (EUGMONT)(EUGMONT)

GOJUST – Guidelines on Judicial GOJUST – Guidelines on Judicial StatisticsStatistics

CEPEJ – recommended indicatorsCEPEJ – recommended indicators

Type of caseCases pending on

1.1.2008New cases initiated

in 2008Resolved cases

in 2008Cases pending on31.12.2008

1 Civil cases

1a Litigious divorces

1b Dismissals

CEPEJ – recommended indicatorsCEPEJ – recommended indicators

resolved casesClearanceRate (%) x100

incoming cases


incomingcases

Number of ResolvedCasesCaseTurnover Ratio=

Number of UnresolvedCasesat theEnd

erRatioCaseTurnovnTimeDispositio

365

Efficiency rate, Total backlog, Backlog resolution, Case per judge, Standard departure …

CEPEJ indicators – appliedCEPEJ indicators – applied


incoming cases

Totals CC Ç per judge

183,88 513,88 2,25 700,00 390,63 309,38 76% 60% 68% 289,08

Remaining Cases

Cases Filed This

Year

Cases Returned

by the Court of

Cassation

Total Files in Docket

Total Cases

Decided

Remaining Cases From the Previous

Year

Clearance Rate

CaseloadBacklog Change

Average Disposition

Time in days

Criminal Courts

240 265 7 512 329 183 121% 67% -24% 203,02

862 589 18 1.469 519 950 86% 157% 10% 668,11

884 576 7 1.467 637 830 109% 142% -6% 475,59

917 590 5 1.512 643 869 108% 146% -5% 493,29

1.087 2.695 0 3.782 2.043 1.739 76% 65% 60% 310,69

384 1.416 18 1.818 1.082 736 75% 51% 92% 248,28

Totals CC Ç 1.471 4.111 18 5.600 3.125 2.475 76% 60% 68% 289,08

"Ç" Courthouse Statistics

14

80

55

42

197

460

346

158

430

166

148

264

889

224

663

304

533

170

498

121286

230

232

296

206

154

168

781

129135

137

126

DISPOSITION TIME & CLEARANCE RATE OF LITIGIOUS CIVIL (AND COMMERCIAL) CASES AT 1ST INSTANCE COURTS IN 2008

Disposition Time

Less than 100 days

From 100 to less than 200 days

From 200 to less than 300 days

300 days and over

Clearance Rate

Less than 90%

From 90% to less than 100%

from 100% to less than 110%

110% and over

Data not supplied


Example: Dispo-sition time and Clearance Rate of litigious civil (and com-mercial) cases at 1st instance courts in 2008

Brazil: Litigation 1st ins.

CR 104.4%DT 1,137 or 3 years

Judicial Efficiency Scoring System

-1,67

0,540,36

-1,14

-0,75

0,00 0,00

-0,75-0,57

-1,16

3,44

-0,23 -0,200,00 0,00 -0,04

-0,24-0,03 -0,07

1,07 1,17

0,00 0,00

0,480,71

0,56

0,97

Gro

ss s

alar

y of

a ju

dge

in re

latio

n to

ave

rage

gro

ss a

nnau

l sal

ary

Prof

esio

nal j

udge

s pe

r 100

.000

Non

-judg

e st

aff w

orki

ng in

cou

rts

per 1

00.0

00

Civi

l (co

mer

cial

cas

es) p

er 1

00.0

00

Non

litig

ious

civ

il (c

omer

cial

cas

es) p

er 1

00.0

00

Land

regi

stry

cas

es p

er 1

00.0

00

Busi

ness

regi

ster

cas

es p

er 1

00.0

00

Adm

inis

trati

ve la

w c

ases

per

100

.000

Enfo

rcem

ent c

ases

per

100

.000

Crim

inal

cas

es (s

ever

e cr

imin

al o

ffenc

es) p

er 1

00.0

00

Mis

dem

eano

ur c

ases

(min

or o

ffenc

es) p

er 1

00.0

00

Clea

ranc

e ra

te C

ivil

(com

erci

al c

ases

)

Clea

ranc

e ra

te n

on li

tigio

us c

ivil

(com

erci

al c

ases

)

Clea

ranc

e ra

te la

nd re

gist

ry c

ases

Clea

ranc

e ra

te b

usin

ess

regi

ster

cas

es

Clea

ranc

e ra

te a

dmin

istr

ative

law

cas

es

Clea

ranc

e ra

te e

nfor

cem

ent c

ases

Clea

ranc

e ra

te c

rimin

al c

ases

(sev

ere

crim

inal

offe

nces

)

Clea

ranc

e ra

te m

isde

mea

nour

cas

es (m

inor

offe

nces

)

Dis

posi

tion

time

civi

l (co

mer

cial

cas

es)

Dis

posi

tion

time

non

litigi

ous

civi

l (co

mer

cial

cas

es)

Dis

posi

tion

time

land

regi

stry

cas

es

Dis

posi

tion

time

busi

ness

regi

ster

cas

es

Dis

posi

tion

time

adm

inis

trati

ve la

w c

ases

Dis

posi

tion

time

enfo

rcem

ent c

ases

Dis

posi

tion

time

crim

inal

cas

es (s

ever

e cr

imin

al o

ffenc

es)

Dis

posi

tion

time

mis

dem

eano

ur c

ases

(min

or o

ffenc

es)

Austria France United Arab Emirates

Input indicators Output indicatorsWorkload indicators

www.coe.int/cepej

Thanks for your attention!Thanks for your attention!

Judicial Statistics?

Documents

Transcript of Judicial Statistics?