EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 28.5.2018 COM(2018) 364 final COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION

The 2018 EU Justice Scoreboard



1. INTRODUCTION Effective justice systems play a crucial role for upholding the rule of law and the values upon which the EU is founded. In his 2017 State of the Union address, the President of the European Commission clearly stated that ‘The rule of law is not optional in the European Union. It is a must. The rule of law means that law and justice are upheld by an independent judiciary’ ( ). The European Commission’s First Vice President, Frans Timmermans, also underlined that ‘Respect for the rule of law is not only a prerequisite for the protection of all the fundamental values listed in Article 2. It is also a pre-requisite for upholding all rights and obligations deriving from the Treaties and for establishing mutual trust of citizens, businesses and national authorities in the legal systems of all other Member States’ ( ). The independence, quality and efficiency of justice systems are key for the implementation of EU law and for the strengthening of mutual trust. They contribute significantly to building an investment-friendly environment and maintaining sustainable growth. Improving the effectiveness of national justice systems has therefore become a well-established priority of the European Semester — the EU’s annual cycle of economic policy coordination. The Annual Growth Survey 2018, which identifies the economic and social priorities for the EU and its Member States for the year ahead, recognises the link between a business-friendly environment on the one hand and the rule of law and improvement in the independence, quality and efficiency of justice systems on the other ( ). When applying EU law, national courts act as EU courts and ensure that the rights and obligations provided under EU law are enforced effectively ( ). The very existence of that effective judicial protection, designed to ensure compliance with EU law, is the essence of the rule of law. In its recent ruling the European Court of Justice underlined that in order to ensure judicial protection, the independence of national courts is essential ( ). Given that effective judicial protection by independent courts is also an essential precondition for sound financial management, the Commission, on 2 May 2018, proposed a Regulation on the protection of the Union's budget in case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States ( ). The 2018 EU Justice Scoreboard (‘the Scoreboard’) develops the overview of indicators concerning the independence, efficiency and quality of the national justice systems. In particular, this edition: -Develops the indicators on judicial independence, particularly on the Councils for the Judiciary and on the involvement of the executive and the parliament in the appointment and dismissal of judges and court presidents. -Develops the sections on criminal justice systems by presenting updated data on money-laundering criminal offences and introducing some indicators on the organisation of prosecution services in the Member States. -Further develops the end-user perspective by presenting indicators on how the needs of specific groups of users of justice systems (e.g. children, visually impaired people, non-native speakers) are being taken into account in the provision of public information on the justice system, in the training of judges, and in surveys of court users or legal professionals. It also presents indicators on how courts use social media to communicate about their work. -Presents a new overview of the use of structural funds for justice reforms. -Presents for the first time data on the length of proceedings in all court instances (first, second and third court instance) for the litigious civil and commercial, and administrative cases. -Continues the examination of standards and presents a more in-depth examination of time frames as measurable targets or practices related to managing the caseload of courts and of selected practices related to managing backlogs. Although data are still lacking for some Member States, the data gap continues to decrease, in particular for indicators on the efficiency of justice systems. The fruitful cooperation with Member States’ contact points on national justice systems and various committees and European judicial networks have enriched the data significantly. The remaining difficulties in gathering data are often due to insufficient statistical capacity or to the fact that the national categories for which data are collected do not exactly correspond to the ones used for the Scoreboard. In very few cases, the data gap is due to the lack of willingness of certain national authorities to contribute. The Commission will continue to encourage Member States to further reduce this data gap. What is the EU Justice Scoreboard? The EU Justice Scoreboard is a comparative information tool that aims to assist the EU and Member States to improve the effectiveness of their national justice systems by providing objective, reliable and comparable data on a number of indicators relevant for the assessment of the quality, independence and efficiency of justice systems in all Member States. The Scoreboard does not present an overall single ranking but an overview of how all the justice systems function, based on various indicators that are of common interest for all Member States. The Scoreboard does not promote any particular type of justice system and treats all Member States on an equal footing. Independence, quality and efficiency are essential parameters of an effective justice system, whatever the model of the national justice system or the legal tradition in which it is anchored. Figures on these three parameters should be read together, as all three elements are necessary for the effectiveness of a justice system and are often interlinked (initiatives aimed at improving one of them may have an influence on the other). The Scoreboard mainly focuses on litigious civil and commercial cases as well as administrative cases in order to assist Member States in their efforts to create a more investment, business and citizen-friendly environment. The Scoreboard is a comparative tool which evolves in dialogue with Member States and the European Parliament ( ). Its objective is to identify the essential parameters of an effective justice system. What is the methodology of the EU Justice Scoreboard? The Scoreboard uses various sources of information. Large parts of the quantitative data are provided by the Council of Europe Commission for the Evaluation of the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) with which the Commission has concluded a contract to carry out a specific annual study. These data cover the period from 2010 to 2016, and have been provided by Member States according to CEPEJ’s methodology. The study also provides detailed comments and country-specific factsheets that give more context. They should be read together with the figures ( ).

Data on the length of proceedings collected by CEPEJ show the ‘disposition time’ which is a calculated length of court proceedings (based on a ratio between pending and resolved cases). Data on courts’ efficiency in applying EU law in specific areas show the average length of proceedings derived from actual length of court cases. It should be noted that the length of court proceedings may vary substantially geographically within a Member State, particularly in urban centres where commercial activities may lead to a higher caseload. Other sources of data are: the group of contact persons on national justice systems, ( ) the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ) ( ), the Network of the Presidents of the Supreme Judicial Courts of the EU (NPSJC) ( ), Association of the Councils of State and Supreme Administrative Jurisdictions of the EU (ACA-Europe) ( ), the European Competition Network (ECN) ( ), the Communications Committee (COCOM) ( ), the European Observatory on infringements of intellectual property rights ( ), the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network (CPC) ( ), the Expert Group on Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (EGMLTF) ( ), Eurostat ( ), the European Judicial Training Network (EJTN) ( ), the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE) ( ) and the World Economic Forum (WEF) ( ). The methodology for the Scoreboard has been further developed in close cooperation with the group of contact persons on national justice systems, particularly through a questionnaire and collecting data on certain aspects of the functioning of justice systems. How does the EU Justice Scoreboard feed into the European Semester? The Scoreboard provides elements for the assessment of quality, independence and efficiency of national justice systems and thereby aims at helping Member States to improve the effectiveness of their national justice systems. This makes it easier to identify shortcomings and best practices and to keep track of challenges and progress. In the context of the European Semester, country-specific assessments are carried out through bilateral dialogue with the national authorities and stakeholders concerned. This assessment is also based on a qualitative analysis and takes into account the characteristics of the legal system and the context of the Member States concerned. It may lead to the Commission proposing to the Council to adopt country-specific recommendations on the improvement of national justice systems. Why are effective justice systems relevant for the European Semester? The positive economic impact of the well-functioning justice systems also justifies these efforts. A 2017 study by the Joint Research Centre identifies correlations between the improvement of court efficiency and the growth rate of the economy, and businesses’ perception of judicial independence and the growth in productivity ( ). Where judicial systems guarantee the enforcement of rights, creditors are more likely to lend, businesses are dissuaded from opportunistic behaviour, transaction costs are reduced and innovative businesses are more likely to invest. The importance of the effectiveness of national justice systems for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) has been highlighted in a 2015 survey of almost 9 000 European SMEs on innovation and intellectual property rights (IPR) ( ). The survey revealed in particular that cost and excessive length of judicial proceedings were among the main reasons for not starting court proceedings over infringement of IPR. The beneficial impact of well-functioning national justice systems for the economy is underlined in a range of literature and research ( ), including from the International Monetary Fund ( ) the European Central Bank ( ), the OECD ( ), the World Economic Forum ( ), and the World Bank ( ). 2. Context: Justice reforms must uphold the Rule of Law Since 2013, the EU is encouraging Member States to improve the independence, quality and efficiency of their justice system. Reforms should not be undertaken for the sake of reforming, but in a manner which upholds the rule of law and complies with European standards on judicial independence. 2.1. Justice reforms are ongoing in many Member States In 2017, a large number of Member States continued efforts to improve the effectiveness of their justice systems. Figure 1 presents an overview of adopted and envisaged justice reforms. It is a factual presentation of ‘who does what,’ without any qualitative evaluation. Figure 1: Legislative and regulatory activity concerning justice systems in 2017 (adopted measures/initiatives under negotiation per Member State) (source: European Commission ( )) Figure 1 shows that procedural law continues to be an area of particular focus in many Member States and that a significant amount of new reforms have been adopted or announced for further information and communication technologies (ICT) development, alternative dispute resolution methods (ADR), legal aid, reform of judicial maps and legislation on judges and the legal professions. A comparison with the 2017 Scoreboard shows that the level of activity gathered further momentum, both for adopted reforms and measures planned for the future. This needs to be set against the fact that justice reforms take time − sometimes several years from the first announcement of new reforms until the adoption of legislative and regulatory measures and their actual implementation. 2.2. Monitoring of justice reforms at EU level At EU level, a number of instruments and mechanisms are used by the Commission to monitor reform efforts undertaken by Member States. This is done in close cooperation with the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary, Network of the Presidents of the Supreme Judicial courts of the European Union and the Association of the Councils of State and Supreme Administrative Jurisdictions of the EU. − Monitoring through the European Semester – The European Semester is the EU’s annual cycle of economic and fiscal policy coordination and part of the EU’s economic governance framework. Justice reform is a well-established priority of the structural reforms encouraged through the European Semester. This priority derives from the fact that the rule of law and improvement in the independence, quality and efficiency of justice systems are crucial for a business-friendly environment ( ). The European Semester cycle starts every year in November when the Commission presents its priorities for the next year (Communication on the Annual Growth Survey). In March, the Commission services present country specific assessments covering all matters dealt with by the Semester in the Country Reports. In May, the Commission presents its proposals for the country specific recommendations that are addressed to Member States. These recommendations are adopted by the Council in July after having been endorsed by the European Council.

Monitoring justice reforms relies on two tools: (i) the comparative tool, the EU Justice Scoreboard, and (ii) the country-specific assessments, the Country Reports, which contextualise and take account of the characteristics of the legal systems of the Member States concerned. Country-specific assessments are carried out through a bilateral dialogue with the national authorities and stakeholders concerned. The combined outcome of these two tools may lead the Commission proposing to the Council to adopt country-specific recommendations on improving national justice systems. In the 2017 European Semester, based on a proposal from the Commission, the Council addressed country-specific recommendations to five Member States relating to their justice system ( ). In addition to those Member States subject to country specific recommendations, a further 11 Member States are facing specific challenges and are being monitored by the Commission through the European Semester ( ). It should also be noted that justice reforms in Greece are closely being monitored in the context of the Third Economic Adjustment programme for Greece. Member States can also draw on the Commission’s technical support through the Structural Reform Support Service. In 2017, nine Member States ( ) received or requested technical support from this service, for example on the efficiency of the court administration system, reform of the judicial map, on the design or implementation of e-justice programmes and on the selection and promotion process for judges. In December 2017, the Commission also presented a reform delivery tool to support Member States’ reform efforts on the basis of the challenges identified in the European Semester process. − The Rule of Law Framework – Beyond the regular monitoring of justice reforms in the context of the European Semester, the Commission in 2014 established a crisis mechanism to address systemic threats to the Rule of Law in any of the EU-28 Member States ( ). This Rule of Law Framework allows the Commission to enter into a dialogue with the Member State concerned to prevent the escalation of systemic threats to the rule of law. The purpose of the Framework is to enable the Commission together with the Member States concerned to find a solution in order to prevent the emergence of a systemic threat to the rule of law that could develop into a situation which would potentially trigger the use of the ‘Article 7 Procedure’. The Commission opened a dialogue with the Polish authorities in January 2016 under the Rule of Law Framework. Despite three Rule of Law Recommendations and repeated efforts, for almost two years, to engage the Polish authorities in a constructive dialogue in the context of the Rule of Law Framework, the Commission concluded on 20 December 2017 that there is a clear risk of a serious breach of the rule of law in Poland. The Commission adopted a fourth Rule of Law Recommendation regarding the rule of law in Poland, setting out the Commission’s concerns and recommending how these concerns can be addressed ( ). The Commission also proposed to the Council to adopt a decision under Article 7(1) of the Treaty on European Union on the determination of a clear risk of a serious breach of the rule of law ( ). − The Cooperation and Verification Mechanims – The Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM) was set up at the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union in 2007 ( ) to address shortcomings in judicial reform and the fight against corruption and, for Bulgaria, organised crime. Since then, CVM reports have sought to help focus the efforts of the Bulgarian and Romanian authorities through specific recommendations, and have charted the progress made ( ). As underlined by the Council ( ), the CVM will end when all benchmarks applying to Bulgaria and to Romania respectively are satisfactorily met. In the January 2017 CVM report, the Commission took stock of ten years of CVM with an overview of the achievements, the challenges outstanding, and set out the key remaining steps needed to achieve the CVM's objectives. To this end, the Commission made key recommendations that if followed up will lead to the conclusion of the CVM process, except if developments were to clearly reverse the course of progress. The report highlighted that the speed of the process would depend on how quickly Bulgaria and Romania will be able to fulfil the recommendations in an irreversible way and also on avoiding negative steps which call into question the progress made in past 10 years. − Infringement proceedings – The Commission is committed to pursuing cases where national law prevents national judicial systems from ensuring that EU law is applied effectively in line with the requirements of the rule of law and Article 47 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the EU ( ). In this context, the Commission in December 2017 decided to refer the Polish Government to the European Court of Justice for breach of EU law by the Law on the Ordinary Courts Organisation. This infringement procedure relates, first, to the discrimination on the basis of gender due to the introduction of a different retirement age for female judges (60 years) and male judges (65 years). This is contrary to Article 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Directive 2006/54 on gender equality in employment. Second, the infringement procedure relates to the independence of Polish courts which is undermined by the discretionary power given to the Minister of Justice to prolong the mandates of judges who have reached the lowered retirement age (see Article 19(1) TEU in combination with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights) ( ). The importance for Member States to ensure the independence of national courts, as a matter of EU law, has been highlighted by the recent European Court of Justice case referred to above ( ) and by a recent request for a preliminary ruling from the Irish High Court to the European Court of Justice on a European Arrest Warrant issued in Poland ( ). 2.3. European Structural and Investment Funds support national justice systems The Commission financially supports certain justice reforms through the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds). Since 2007, 16 Member States have used ESI Funds to improve the effectiveness of their justice systems. Between 2007 and 2023, these Member States will have spent more than EUR 900 million to increase the efficiency and improve the quality of their justice systems ( ). Funded activities include: ·improving business processes in courts by introducing case management systems or a human resources strategy; ·digitalising the judiciary by establishing e-services for citizens and businesses; ·providing training to court staff and raising citizens’ awareness of their rights. Figure 2 below shows that ESI Funds activities have been broadly grouped in categories that reflect the objectives of the projects. Often, individual project covered several types of activities (e.g. ADR/ODR methods, Digitalisation and ICT, and training). The financially most important activity was digitalisation and ICT of the justice system to where 14 out of the 16 Member States allocated funding. Until mid-2017, only Croatia and Malta had not allocated any ESI Funds on digitalisation and ICT. While activities contributing to improving internal processes and supporting training and awareness raising were of significantly less financial importance, the number of Member States that allocated funding was nevertheless significant (12 out of 16).

Figure 3 shows that most Member States opted to spread the ESI Funds dedicated to the justice system across a number of different types of activities while only a few others focused on one category. Spain and Portugal allocated the funding exclusively to digitalisation and ICT and Malta and Croatia to training and awareness raising. Many of those Member States that attributed a significant share of their ESI Funds to digitalisation and ICT are among those where lawyers report a rather frequent use of ICT in exchanges between courts and lawyers ( ). In contrast, in those Member States with a low or no allocation to digitalisation and ICT the use of ICT for exchanges with courts is very limited. The Commission will pay particular attention to ensure that EU funds are adequately used for the appropriate reforms in line with rule of law. The Commission emphasises the importance of taking a result-oriented approach when implementing the funding priorities and calls upon Member States to evaluate the impact of ESI Funds support. The figures below show the amounts spent and allocated to the justice system since 2007 ( ) in the 16 Member States that used the ESI Funds to support their justice systems.



Figure 2: Support for justice systems from Structural Funds by objective since 2007 (in million Euro) (source: Study prepared for the European Commission) Figure 3: Support for justice systems from Structural Funds by objective and Member State since 2007 (source: Study prepared for the European Commission) 3. Key findings of the 2018 EU Justice Scoreboard Efficiency, quality and independence are the main parameters of an effective justice system, and the Scoreboard presents indicators on all three. 3.1. Efficiency of justice systems The Scoreboard presents indicators for the efficiency of proceedings in the broad areas of civil, commercial and administrative cases and in specific areas where administrative authorities and courts apply EU law ( ). 3.1.1. Developments in caseload The caseload of Member States’ justice systems is high but rather stable, even if it varies considerably between Member States (Figure 4). This shows the importance of continuing efforts to ensure the effectiveness of justice system. For the first time, the 2018 EU Justice Scoreboard also presents data on the incoming administrative cases (Figure 6). Figure 4: Number of incoming civil, commercial, administrative and other cases (*) (1st instance/per 100 inhabitants) (source: CEPEJ study ( )) (*) Under the CEPEJ methodology, this category includes all civil and commercial litigious and non-litigious cases, non-litigious land and business registry cases, other registry cases, other non-litigious cases, administrative law cases and other non-criminal cases. Methodology changes in SK. Figure 5: Number of incoming civil and commercial litigious cases (*) (1st instance/per 100 inhabitants) (source: CEPEJ study) (*) Under the CEPEJ methodology, litigious civil/commercial cases concern disputes between parties, e.g. disputes regarding contracts. Non-litigious civil/commercial cases concern uncontested proceedings, e.g. uncontested payment orders. Methodology changes in EL and SK. Data for NL include non-litigious cases.

Figure 6: Number of incoming administrative cases (*) (1st instance/per 100 inhabitants) (source: CEPEJ study) * Under the CEPEJ methodology, administrative law cases concern disputes between citizens and local, regional or national authorities. Methodology changes in EL and SK. DK and IE do not record administrative cases separately. 3.1.2. General data on efficiency The indicators on the efficiency of proceedings in the broad areas of civil, commercial and administrative cases are: length of proceedings (disposition time); clearance rate; and number of pending cases. − Length of proceedings – The length of proceedings indicates the estimated time (in days) needed to resolve a case in court, meaning the time taken by the court to reach a decision at first instance. The ‘disposition time’ indicator is the number of unresolved cases divided by the number of resolved cases at the end of a year multiplied by 365 (days) ( ). Figures mostly concern proceedings at first instance courts and compare, where available, data for 2010, 2014, 2015 and 2016 ( ). Two figures show the disposition time in 2016 in civil and commercial litigious cases and administrative cases at all court instances. Figure 7: Time needed to resolve civil, commercial, administrative and other cases (*)

(1st instance/in days) (source: CEPEJ study) (*) Under the CEPEJ methodology, this category includes all civil and commercial litigious and non-litigious cases, non-litigious land and business registry cases, other registry cases, other non-litigious cases, administrative law cases and other non-criminal cases. Methodology changes in SK. Pending cases include all instances in CZ and, until 2016, in SK. Figure 8: Time needed to resolve litigious civil and commercial cases (*)

(1st instance/in days) (source: CEPEJ study) (*) Under the CEPEJ methodology, litigious civil/commercial cases concern disputes between parties, e.g. disputes regarding contracts. Non-litigious civil/commercial cases concern uncontested proceedings, e.g. uncontested payment orders. Methodology changes in EL and SK. Pending cases include all instances in CZ and, until 2016, in SK. Data for NL include non-litigious cases.



Figure 9: Time needed to resolve litigious civil and commercial cases (*) at all court instances in 2016 (1st, 2nd and 3rd instance/in days) (source: CEPEJ study) (*) The order is determined by the court instance with the longest proceedings in each Member State. No data available for first and second instance courts in BE, BG and IE, for second and third instance courts in NL and AT, for third instance courts in DE, EL, HR and SK. No third instance court in MT. Access to third instance court may be limited in some Member States. Figure 10: Time needed to resolve administrative cases (*)(1st instance/in days) (source: CEPEJ study (*) Administrative law cases concern disputes between citizens and local, regional or national authorities, under the CEPEJ methodology. Methodology changes in EL and SK. Pending cases include all court instances in CZ and, until 2016, in SK. DK and IE do not record administrative cases separately.





Figure 11: Time needed to resolve administrative cases (*) at all court instances in 2016 (1st and, where applicable, 2nd and 3rd instance/in days) (source: CEPEJ study) (*) The order is determined by the court instance with the longest proceedings in each Member State. No data available: for first instance court in LU, for second instance courts in MT and RO, and for third instance court in NL. The supreme or another highest court is the only appeal instance in CZ, IT, CY, AT, SI and FI. No third instance court for these types of cases in HR, LT, LU, MT and PL. The highest Administrative Court is the first and only instance for certain cases in BE. Access to third instance court may be limited in some Member States. DK and IE do not record administrative cases separately. − Clearance rate – The clearance rate is the ratio of the number of resolved cases over the number of incoming cases. It measures whether a court is keeping up with its incoming caseload. When the clearance rate is about 100 % or higher, it means the judicial system is able to resolve at least as many cases as that come in. When the clearance rate is below 100 %, it means that the courts are resolving fewer cases than the number of incoming cases. Figure 12: Rate of resolving civil, commercial, administrative and other cases (*)

(1st instance/in % — values higher than 100 % indicate that more cases are resolved than come in, while values below 100 % indicate that fewer cases are resolved than come in) (source: CEPEJ study) (*) Methodology changes in SK. IE: the number of resolved cases is expected to be underreported due to the methodology. Figure 13: Rate of resolving litigious civil and commercial cases (*) (1st instance/in %) (source: CEPEJ study) (*) Methodology changes in EL and SK. IE: the number of resolved cases is expected to be underreported due to the methodology. Data for NL include non-litigious cases. Figure 14: Rate of resolving administrative cases (*) (1st instance/in %) (source: CEPEJ study) (*) Past values for some Member States have been reduced for presentation purposes (MT in 2015=411 %; IT in 2010=316 %); Methodology changes in EL and SK. DK and IE do not record administrative cases separately.

− Pending cases – The number of pending cases expresses the number of cases that remains to be dealt with at the end of the year in question. It also influences the disposition time. Figure 15: Number of pending civil, commercial and administrative and other cases (*) (1st instance/per 100 inhabitants) (source: CEPEJ study) (*) Methodology changes in SK. Pending cases include all instances in CZ and, until 2016, in SK. Figure 16: Number of pending litigious civil and commercial cases (*) (1st instance/per 100 inhabitants) (source: CEPEJ study)

(*) Methodology changes in EL and SK. Pending cases include all instances in CZ and, until 2016, in SK. Data for NL include non-litigious cases.

Figure 17: Number of pending administrative cases (*) (1st instance/per 100 inhabitants) (source: CEPEJ study) (*) Past values for some Member States have been reduced for presentation purposes (EL in 2010=3.7). Methodology changes in EL and SK. Pending cases include all instances in CZ and, until 2016, in SK. DK and IE do not record administrative cases separately. 3.1.3. Efficiency in specific areas of EU law This section complements the general data on the efficiency of justice systems and presents the average length of proceedings ( ) in specific areas when EU law is involved. The 2018 Scoreboard builds on previous data in the areas of competition, electronic communications, EU trademark, consumer protection, and anti-money laundering. The areas are selected because of their relevance for the single market and the business environment. In general, long delays in judicial proceedings may have negative consequences on rights stemming from EU law, e.g. when appropriate remedies are no longer available or serious financial damages become irrecoverable. – Competition – Effective enforcement of competition law ensures a level playing field for businesses and is therefore essential for an attractive business environment. Figure 18 below presents the average length of cases against decisions of national competition authorities applying Articles 101 and 102 TFEU ( ). Figure 18 Competition: Average length of judicial review (*) (1st instance/in days) (source: European Commission with the European Competition Network) (*) EE: no cases. IE and AT: scenario is not applicable as the authorities do not have powers to take respective decisions. AT: data includes cases decided by the Cartel Court involving an infringement of Articles 101 and 201 TFEU, but not based on appeals against the national competition authority. An estimation of length was used in BG, IT. An empty column indicates that the Member State reported no cases for the year. The number of cases is low (below 5 per year) in many Member States, which can make the annual data dependent on one exceptionally long or short case. A number of the longest cases in the dataset included the time needed for a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (e.g. LT), a constitutional review (e.g. SK) or specific procedural delays (e.g. CZ, EL, HU). – Electronic communications – The objective of EU electronic communications legislation is to raise competition, to contribute to the development of the single market and to generate investment, innovation and growth. The positive effects for consumers can be achieved through effective enforcement of this legislation which can lead to lower end-user prices and better quality services. Figure 19 below presents the average length of judicial review cases against decisions of national regulatory authorities applying EU law on electronic communications ( ). It covers a broad spectrum of cases, ranging from more complex ‘market analysis’ reviews to consumer-focused issues.



Figure 19 Electronic communications: Average length of judicial review cases (*) (1st instance/in days) (source: European Commission with the Communications Committee) (*) The number of cases varies by Member State. An empty column indicates that the Member State reported no cases for the year. In some instances, the limited number of relevant cases (LT, MT, SE, LV, SK) can make the annual data dependent on one exceptionally long or short case and result in large variations from one year to the other. DK: quasi-judicial body in charge of 1st instance appeals. ES, AT, and PL: different courts in charge depending on the subject matter. MT: an exceptionally long case of 2 500 days was reported in 2016, which related to a complex issue whereby a local authority, together with several residents, filed proceedings in relation to alleged harmful emissions from base mobile radiocommunications stations. – EU trademark – Effective enforcement of intellectual property rights is essential to stimulate investment into innovation. EU legislation on EU trademarks ( ) gives a significant role to the national courts, which act as EU courts and take decisions affecting the single market. Figure 20 below shows average length of EU trademark infringement cases in litigation among private parties. Figure 20 EU trademark: Average length of EU trademark infringement cases (*) (1st instance/in days) (source: European Commission with the European Observatory on infringements of intellectual property rights)

(*) FR, IT, LT, LU: a sample of cases used for data of certain years. BG: estimation by courts used for 2016. PL: estimation by courts used for 2015. The number of relevant cases was limited (less than 5) in EE, IE, HR, LU and SI. Particularly long cases affecting the average reported in EE, IE, LV and SE. EL: data based on weighted average length from two courts. ES: cases concerning other EU IP titles are included in the calculation of average length. – Consumer protection – Effective enforcement of consumer law ensures that consumers benefit from their rights and that companies infringing consumer rules do not gain unfair advantage. Consumer authorities and courts play a key role in the enforcement of EU consumer law ( ) within the various national enforcement systems. Figure 21 illustrates the average length of judicial review cases against decisions of consumer protection authorities applying EU law. For consumers or companies, effective enforcement can involve a chain of actors, not only courts but also administrative authorities. To continue the examination of this enforcement chain, length of proceedings by consumer authorities is presented again. Figure 22 shows the average length of administrative decisions by national consumer protection authorities in 2014-2016 from the moment a case is opened. Relevant decisions include declaring infringements of substantive rules, interim measures, cease and desist orders, initiation of court proceedings or case closure. Figure 21 Consumer protection: Average length of judicial review (*) (1st instance/in days) (source: European Commission with the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network) (*) BE, LU, AT, FI, SE and UK: scenario is not applicable as consumer authorities not empowered to decide on infringements of relevant consumer rules. In some of these Member States (e.g. FI and SE) consumer authorities can initiate actions in court, or contact the public prosecutor (BE). DE: administrative authorities can adopt decisions in cross-border cases only, but no relevant cases occurred as the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection instructed other qualified entities to take enforcement measures. Some Member States have mixed systems (BG, DK, EE, IE, ES and LT) where consumer authorities have to bring court actions on some rules (e.g. unfair contract terms in BG and CY). DE and AT: Mostly civil enforcement in consumer law through consumers or private/semi-private bodies. ES: data covers a limited number of Autonomous Communities. The number of relevant cases is low (less than five) in DK, EE and IE. An estimate of average length was provided by EL, PL and RO. The powers of some authorities include only parts of the relevant EU consumer law. Figure 22 Consumer protection: Average length of administrative decisions by consumer protection authorities (*) (1st instance/in days) (source: European Commission with the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network) (*) BE, DE, LU, AT: scenario is not applicable. SE: change in regulation allowed an authority to adopt a relevant decision issuing a conditional fine. CZ: all decisions, including non-final decisions of the authority, were included in the calculation of the average length. PL: data includes only proceedings where a decision was issued and does not include proceedings that were formally discontinued. DK: a variation in average length compared to previous years can be explained by a change in methodology. NL: data covers decisions in which an administrative fine was imposed because of infringement of substantive rules. ES: data covers a limited number of Autonomous Communities. Some Member States indicated that they also use informal instruments to enforce consumer law, which are generally successful (NL, LU) or compliance is reached without a decision of an authority (MT). An estimate or a range of an average length was provided by EL, IE, RO and FI. In case of a minimum and maximum range, the figure shows an average. Some authorities are competent for only parts of relevant EU law. – Provisional measures – Provisional measures decided by courts include temporary injunctions and seizure of goods aimed at deterring or preventing an imminent infringement before the final resolution of a case. Efficiency of proceedings for provisional measures is particularly important, as they are often used in cases of urgency where delays could lead to irreparable harm for the claimant. Figure 23 below illustrates the average time needed to obtain a decision of a national court on a request for the application of provisional or interim measures to stop infringements of EU trademarks ( ) and of electronic communications rules ( ). The figure shows the average length of proceedings in these areas where decisions were taken in 2015 and 2016. Figure 23 Provisional measures: Average length of provisional measures in 2015 and 2016 (*) (1st instance/in days) (source: European Commission with the European Observatory on infringements of intellectual property rights and the Communications Committee) (*) EU trademark: DK reported no cases. BE, DE, FR, HR, CY, MT, LU, AT, AK, UK provided no data. Specific circumstances making the average length longer than usual were reported in EL. Electronic communications: BE, CY, DK, EE, IE, LV, MT, NL, RO, SK and UK reported no cases. LU provided no data. The number of cases is low (less than five per year) for most Member States in each area, which can make the annual data dependent on one exceptionally long or short case. – Money Laundering – In addition to contributing to the fight against crime, the effectiveness of the fight against money laundering is crucial for the soundness, integrity and stability of the financial sector, the confidence in the financial system and fair competition in the single market ( ). As underlined by the International Monetary Fund, money laundering can discourage foreign investment, distort international capital flows and have negative consequences for a country’s macroeconomic performance, resulting in welfare losses, draining resources from more productive economic activities ( ). The anti-money laundering Directive requires Member States to maintain statistics on the effectiveness of their systems to combat money laundering or terrorist financing ( ). In cooperation with Member States, an updated questionnaire collected data on the judicial phases of the national anti-money laundering regimes. Figure 24 shows the average length of first instance court cases dealing with money laundering criminal offences. Figure 24: Money laundering: Average length of court cases (*) (1st instance/in days) (source: European Commission with the Expert Group on Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism)

(*) ES: estimated length. LV: Due to a relatively low number of cases in 2016, there are various factors possibly impacting the length of proceeding, e.g. a stay in a single case for objective reasons. PL: Calculation of length for 2016 based on a randomly selected sample of cases. 3.1.4. Summary on the efficiency of justice systems An efficient justice system manages its caseload and backlog of cases, and delivers rulings without undue delay. The main parameters used by the EU Justice Scoreboard to examine the efficiency of justice systems are therefore the length of proceedings (estimated or average time in days needed to resolve a case), the clearance rate (the ratio of the number of resolved cases over the number of incoming cases) and the number of pending cases (that remains to be dealt with at the end of the year). General data on efficiency The 2018 EU Justice Scoreboard contains data on efficiency covering seven years (2010-2016). This amount of time allows certain trends to be identified. This is particularly relevant considering that justice reforms often take time to show their effect. Looking at the general data in civil, commercial and administrative cases, the Scoreboard shows that over the seven year period an overall positive trend on efficiency prevails. According to the data available since 2010, efficiency has improved or remained stable in almost all Member States with very few exceptions. In particular, it is encouraging to observe the positive developments in the Member States which have been identified in the context of the European Semester or economic adjustment programme as facing challenges ( ): ·Since 2010, in nearly all of these Member States, the length of first instance court proceedings in the broad ‘all cases’ category (Figure 7) and the litigious civil and commercial cases (Figure 8) has decreased or remained stable. In administrative cases (Figure 10), the length of proceedings since 2010 decreased or remained stable in most of these Member States. However, few Member States facing the most substantial challenges in 2016 showed an increase in the length of proceedings. ·For the first time, the Scoreboard presents data on the length of proceedings in all court instances for the litigious civil and commercial (Figure 9) and administrative cases (Figure 11). Data show that the Member States identified as facing challenges with the length of proceedings in first instance courts have similar issues at higher instance courts. Further, the average length of proceedings in higher instance courts is generally longer than in first instance courts in the majority of Member States where data are available. ·In the broad ‘all cases’ and the litigious civil and commercial cases categories (Figures 12 and 13), the overall number of Member States where the clearance rate is less than 100 % has decreased since 2010. In 2016, nearly all Member States, including those facing challenges, reported a high clearance rate (more than 97 %), which means that courts are generally able to deal with the incoming cases in these categories. In administrative cases (Figure 14), a larger variation of the clearance rate can be observed from one year to another and overall it remains lower than in other categories of cases. ·Since 2010, progress is clear in all Member States facing the most substantial challenges with their backlog, regardless of the category of cases. Most improvement in reducing pending cases has been made for litigious civil and commercial cases (Figure 16) and administrative cases (Figure 17). Despite these improvements, the difference between the Member States with few pending cases and those with a high number of pending cases remains very important. Efficiency in specific areas of EU law Data on the average length of proceedings in specific areas (Figures 18-24) provide an insight into the functioning of justice systems in types of business-related disputes covered by EU law. For citizens or businesses, effective enforcement can involve a chain of actors, not only courts but also administrative authorities. The Scoreboard presents data on this enforcement chain in the area of consumer law (Figures 21 and 22). Data on efficiency in specific areas of law are collected on the basis of narrowly defined scenarios and the number of relevant cases may be low. However, as compared to the calculated length of proceedings presented in the general data on efficiency, these figures provide for an actual average length of all relevant cases in a year. It is therefore worth noting that several Member States which do not appear as facing challenges on the basis of general data on efficiency report significantly longer average length of cases in specific areas of law. At the same time, the length of proceedings in different specific areas may also vary considerably in the same Member State. The figures in specific areas of EU law confirm that: ·For competition cases (Figure 18), more than one third of Member States (11) report first instance cases lasting more than three years. An explanation could be that these cases are low in number and generally very complex, often requiring additional and specific procedural steps. A similar tendency can be observed in the area of electronic communications (Figure 19) where cases take on average longer than in the broad category of administrative cases as well as in other specific areas of law, for example, in consumer law (Figure 21). ·The possible combined effect of the enforcement chain consisting of both administrative and judicial review proceedings is presented in the area of consumer law (Figures 21 and 22). In only a quarter of Member States, a consumer protection authority takes a decision in a case covered by EU consumer law in less than three months on average. Other Member States report an average length of three months to more than a year. Some consumer protection authorities' deal with a substantial number of cases and the majority of their decisions are not challenged in courts. However, where a judicial review of an administrative decision takes place, it would on average take more than one year in the majority of Member States. The cumulative effect of both administrative and judicial proceedings may therefore be very substantial, in particular for a consumer seeking redress. ·Data on the length of interim measures to prevent imminent infringements or damages in the areas of electronic communication and intellectual property rights is also presented (Figure 23). It shows high variety across the Member States, as well as per type of case in the same country. The number of cases where a decision on a provisional measure was adopted is significantly lower than the number of main proceedings in those areas of law. ·The effective fight against money laundering is crucial in protecting the financial system, fair competition and preventing negative economic consequences. In view of complying with the obligations stemming from the anti-money laundering Directive as of June 2017, Member States improved their capacity to collect data on the judicial phases of the national anti-money laundering regime. The 2018 EU Justice Scoreboard presents updated data on the length of judicial proceedings dealing with money laundering offences (Figure 24), which show that while in about a half of Member States the first instance court proceedings take up to a year on average, these proceedings take around two years on average in several Member States facing challenges. 3.2. Quality of justice systems There is no single way of measuring the quality of justice systems. The 2018 EU Justice Scoreboard continues examining factors that are generally accepted as relevant to improve the quality of justice. They are grouped into four categories: 1) accessibility of justice for citizens and businesses; 2) adequate material and human resources; 3) putting in place assessment tools; and 4) using quality standards. 3.2.1. Accessibility Accessibility is required throughout the whole justice chain to enable obtaining relevant information — about the justice system, how to initiate a claim and the related financial aspects, the state of play of proceedings up until their end — so that the judgment can be swiftly accessed online ( ). – Giving information about the justice system – Citizen-friendly justice requires that information about the judicial system is provided in a way that is not only easily accessible but also presents the information in a tailor-made form for specific groups of society who would otherwise have difficulties in accessing the information. Figure 25 shows the availability of online information about specific aspects of the judicial system and for specific groups of society. Figure 25: Availability of online information about the judicial system for the general public(*) (source: European Commission ( )) (*) DE: Each federal state and the federal level decide which information to provide online. – Legal aid and court fees – Access to legal aid is a fundamental right enshrined in the Charter ( ). Most Member States grant legal aid on the basis of the applicant’s income ( ). In order to collect comparable data, two scenarios involving a consumer dispute have been set out in the context of each Member State’s income and living conditions. Figure 26 shows the availability of legal aid for these two scenarios, which are based on two different values of the claim: (i) a high value claim (i.e. EUR 6 000) and (ii) a low value claim (i.e. each Member State’s respective Eurostat poverty threshold converted to monthly income) ( ). Figure 26 compares in percentage the income thresholds for granting legal aid with the Eurostat poverty threshold in each Member State. For example, if eligibility for legal aid appears at 20 %, it means that an applicant with an income 20 % higher than the respective Eurostat poverty threshold can receive legal aid. On the contrary, if eligibility for legal aid appears at -20 %, it means that the income threshold for legal aid is 20 % lower than the Eurostat poverty threshold. Some Member States operate a legal aid system that provides for 100 % coverage of the costs linked to litigation (full legal aid), complemented by a system covering partial costs (partial legal aid). Other Member States operate either only a full or only a partial legal aid system. Figure 26: Income threshold for legal aid in a specific consumer case (*) (differences in % from Eurostat poverty threshold) (source: European Commission with the CCBE ( ))

(*)‘Low value claim’ is a claim corresponding to the Eurostat poverty threshold for a single person in each Member State, converted to monthly income (e.g. in 2015, this value ranged between €116 in RO and €1 764 in LU). The figure presents thresholds for legal aid ranging from 40 % to -30 %. DK, DE, EE, ES, FR, HR, LT, NL, FI, and SE grant legal aid at an income threshold which ranges between 40 % and 357 %. HU: legal aid is granted at an income threshold of -41 %. BG: the legal aid threshold is at the poverty threshold level. IE and SK: no legal aid is available for a value of the claim at the respective AROP threshold as the amount is too small. DE: the income threshold is based on the Prozesskostenhilfebekanntmachung 2017 and average annual housing costs (SILC). LV: a range of income between €128.06 and €320 depending on the place of residence of the applicant. The rate is based on the arithmetic mean. ** EE: full legal aid is granted on court’s discretion. MT: Data refers to 2016. Most Member States require parties to pay a court fee when starting a judicial proceeding. Recipients of legal aid are often exempt from paying court fees. Only BE, EE, IE, NL and SI require a recipient of legal aid to pay a court fee. In CZ the court decides on an individual basis to exempt a legal aid recipient from paying court fees. Figure 27 compares for the two scenarios the level of the court fee presented as a share of the value of the claim. If, for example, in the figure below the court fee appears at 10 % of a EUR 6 000 claim, the consumer will have to pay a EUR 600 court fee to start a judicial proceeding. The low value claim is based on the Eurostat poverty threshold for each Member State. Figure 27: Court fee to start a judicial proceeding in a specific consumer case (*) (level of court fee as a share of the value of the claim) (source: European Commission with the CCBE( )) (*) ‘Low value claim’: see explanation below Figure 26. LU: Litigants have to pay bailiff fees to start proceedings as a plaintiff. NL* Court fees for income <€2200/months. NL** Court fees for income > €2200/month. – Submitting and following a claim online – The ability to complete specific steps in the judicial procedure by electronic means is an important part of the quality of justice systems because the electronic submission of claims, the possibility to monitor and advance a proceeding online can ease access to justice and reduce delays and costs. ICT systems in courts also play an increasing role in cross-border cooperation between judicial authorities and also facilitate the implementation of EU legislation, for example, on small claims procedures. One of the Commission’s policy goals is to simplify and speed up small claims procedures by improving the communication between judicial authorities and by making smart use of ICT.



Figure 28: Availability of electronic means (*) (0 = available in 0 % of courts, 4 = available in 100 % of courts ( )) (source: CEPEJ study) (*) DK and RO: cases may be submitted to courts by email. Figure 29: Benchmarking of small claims procedures online (*) (source: 15th eGovernment Benchmark report, study prepared for the European Commission, Directorate-General Communications Networks, Content & Technology ( )) (*) Member States only received 100 points per category if the service was fully available through a central portal. – Exchanges between courts and lawyers – The frequency of using various ICT tools in exchanges between courts and lawyers and the underlying reasons for using or not using differ significantly between Member States ( ). Figures 30 and 31 present the results of a survey of lawyers conducted in 2017 on the actual use of ICT. Figure 30: Use of ICT between courts and lawyers (*) (source: CCBE survey) (*) Data for DK, NL, MT and LU from 2016. Submissions to court covers: ’electronic submission of a claim’, ‘electronic submission of summons to appear in court’ and ‘electronic submission of evidence/supporting documents’. (**) Submissions to court covers the following answer options:’ electronic submission of a claim’, ‘electronic submission of summons to appear in court’, ‘electronic submission of evidence/supporting documents’. Figure 31: Reasons for the (non-)use of ICT between courts and lawyers (source: CCBE survey)

(*) Data for DK, NL, LU and MT from 2016. – Use of social media and communicating with the media – For the general public, social media and media in general serve as a channel that contributes to the accessibility of justice systems and judicial work. Figure 32: Use of social media and guidelines for relations with the press/media (*) (source: European Commission ( )) (*) For each of the three instances two points can be given if civil/commercial cases and administrative cases are covered. If only one of the two categories of cases is covered only one point is given. Maximum possible: 7 points. DE: each federal state has own guidelines for using social media. – Accessing judgments – Ensuring access to judgments online increases the transparency of justice systems, helps citizens and businesses understand their rights and can contribute to consistency in case-law. The arrangements for online publication of judgments are essential for creating user-friendly search facilities ( ), that make case-law more accessible to legal professionals and the general public. Figure 33: Access to published judgments online to the general public (*) (civil/commercial and administrative cases, all instances) (source: European Commission ( )) (*) For each court instance, one point was given if all judgments are available for civil/commercial and administrative cases respectively (0.5 points when some judgments are available). For Member States with only two court instances, points have been given for three court instances by mirroring the respective higher instance court of the non-existing instance. For those Member States that do not distinguish between the two areas of law, the same number of points has been given for both areas. Maximum possible: 6 points. LU und SE: courts do not publish judgments regularly online (only landmark cases). LV: For judgment adopted in non -public hearings, only the publicly announced parts are published online. DE: each federal state decides on online availability of 1st instance court judgments. Figure 34: Arrangements for online publication of judgments in all instances (*) (civil/commercial and administrative cases, all instances) (source: European Commission ( )) (*) For each of the three instances, two points can be given if civil/commercial cases and administrative cases are covered. If only one of the two categories of cases is covered only one point per instance is given. Maximum possible: 30 points. NL: no keywords, but a table of contents is added to every published judgment. LV: All judgments adopted after end September 2017 are assigned an ECLI. – Accessing alternative dispute resolution methods – Figure 35 shows Member States’ efforts in promoting the voluntary use of alternative dispute resolution methods through specific incentives, which may vary depending on the area of law ( ). Figure 36 shows the number of consumer complaints submitted through the European online dispute resolution (ODR) platform ( ), revealing a high increase in its use. Visiting the ODR platform also helps consumers access ADR bodies, as the platform — in addition to providing information on consumer rights, available ADR bodies and alternative options to find redress — transmits the dispute to the ADR body that the parties have selected.

Figure 35: Promotion of and incentives for using ADR methods (*) (source: European Commission ( ))

(*) Aggregated data based on the following indicators: 1) website providing information on ADR, 2) publicity campaigns in media, 3) brochures to the general public, 4) court provides specific information sessions on ADR upon request, 5) ADR/mediation coordinator at courts, 6) publication of evaluations on the use of ADR, 7) publication of statistics on the use of ADR, 8) legal aid covers costs (in part or in full) incurred with ADR, 9) full or partial refund of court fees (including stamp duties), 11) if ADR is successful, no lawyer for ADR procedure required, 12) judge can act as mediator, and 13) agreement reached by the parties becomes enforceable in court. For each of these 13 indicators, one point was given for each area of law. Maximum possible: 39 points. DK: Each court has an ambassador responsible for promoting the use of mediation. ES: ADR is mandatory in labour law cases. LT: a secretary at the National Courts Administration coordinates the judicial mediation processes in courts. PT: for civil/commercial disputes, court fees are refunded only in case of justices for peace. SE: judges have procedural discretion on ADR; seeking friendly settlements is a mandatory task for the judge unless it’s inappropriate. Figure 36: Number of consumer complaints to ODR platform per 100 000 inhabitants, 2016 and 2017 (*) (source: ODR platform — extracted 05/01/2018) (*) The figure shows the number of complaints submitted to the ODR platform, not the number of disputes received by ADR entities via the ODR platform. A number of cases submitted to the ODR platform are subsequently solved bilaterally between the parties outside the platform, without any further involvement of an ADR entity. 3.2.2. Resources Adequate resources and well-qualified staff are necessary for the good functioning of the justice system. Without a sufficient number of staff with the required qualifications, skills and access to continuous training, the quality of proceedings and decisions are at stake. – Financial resources – The figures below show the budget actually spent on courts, first by inhabitant (Figure 37) and second as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) (Figure 38) ( ). Figure 37: General government total expenditure on law courts (*) (in EUR per inhabitant) (source: Eurostat) (*) 2016 data for ES, FR, NL, and SK are provisional. Figure 38: General government total expenditure on law courts (*) (as a percentage of GDP) (source: Eurostat) (*) 2016 data for ES, FR, NL, and SK are provisional. Figure 39 shows which state power (judiciary, legislature or executive) sets the criteria on determining financial resources for the judiciary, and the type of criteria used. Figure 39: Criteria for determining financial resources for the judiciary (*) ( ) (*) DK: number of incoming and resolved cases at courts of 1st instance courts are taken into account. DE: only for the Supreme Federal Court’s budget — as regards courts of 1st and 2nd instance. Judicial systems vary between the federal states. EE: number of incoming and resolved cases for courts of 1st and 2nd instance courts. FR: number of incoming and resolved cases for courts of all instances. IT: the Ministry of Justice defines criteria for civil and criminal courts, while the Council for the Judiciary (CPGA) defines criteria for administrative courts. HU: law states that the salaries of judges must be determined in the act on the central budget in such a way that the amount must not be lower than it had been in the previous year. NL: the number of resolved cases based on an evaluation of the costs for courts is taken into account. – Human resources – Adequate human resources are essential for the quality of a justice system. Diversity among judges, including gender balance, adds complementary knowledge, skills and experience and reflects the reality of society. Figure 40: Number of judges (*) (per 100 000 inhabitants) (source: CEPEJ study)

(*) This category consists of judges working full-time, under the CEPEJ methodology. It does not include the Rechtspfleger/court clerks that exist in some Member States. EL: the total number of professional judges includes different categories over the years shown above, which partly explains their variation. UK: weighted average of the three jurisdictions. Data for 2010 contains 2012 data for UK (NI). LU: numbers have been revised following an improved methodology. Figure 41: Proportion of female professional judges at 1st and 2nd instance courts in 2016 (source: CEPEJ study) (*) UK and EL: data for 2014.



Figure 42: Proportion of female professional judges at Supreme Courts in 2017 (*) (source: European Commission ( )) (*) The Member States are in the same order as in Figure 41. Figure 43: Number of lawyers (*) (per 100 000 inhabitants) (source: CEPEJ study) (*) Under CEPEJ methodology a lawyer is a person qualified and authorised according to national law to plead and act on behalf of his or her clients, to engage in the practice of law, to appear before the courts or advise and represent his or her clients in legal matters (Recommendation Rec (2000)21 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the freedom of exercise of the profession of lawyer). – Training – Judicial training is important in contributing to the quality of judicial decisions and the justice service delivered to citizens. The data set out below cover judicial training in a broad range of areas, including communication with parties and the press and on judicial skills. Most Member States continue with the same type of compulsory training for judges as last year with the exception of ES, CY, HU and PT which have extended the scope of the training and EL that has reduced it. Figure 44Error! No sequence specified.: Judges participating in continuous training activities in EU law or in the law of another Member State (*) (as a percentage of total number of judges) (source: European Commission ( )) (*) Values for some Member States have been reduced for presentation purposes (SI=243%). In a few Member States the ratio of participants exceeds 100 %, meaning that some participants attended more than one training activity. DK: including court staff. AT: including prosecutors. SE data are for 2015. Figure 45: Share of continuous training of judges on various types of skills (*) (as a percentage of total number of judges receiving these types of training) (source: European Commission ( )) (*) The table shows the distribution of judges participating in continuous training activities (i.e. those taking place after the initial training period to become a judge) in each of the four identified areas as a percentage of the total number of judges trained in these types of training. Legal training activities are not taken into account. Judicial training authorities in MT, UK (NI) and UK (EN+WL) did not provide specific training activities on the selected skills. SE data are for 2015.Training on judgecraft also covers judicial ethics. AT: including prosecutors. DK: including court staff. Figure 46: Availability of training for judges on communication with parties and the press (*) (source: European Commission ( )) (*) DK: no training is offered on communicating with people who are visually or hearing impaired because the state offers a visually or hearing impaired people support in form of tools or an assistant in the courtroom, e.g. a deaf interpreter. 3.2.3. Assessment tools

Monitoring and evaluation of court activities help to detect shortcomings and needs, and therefore help the justice system increase its quality. Regular evaluation could improve the justice system’s responsiveness to current and future challenges. Adequate ICT tools could provide real-time case management systems and could help to provide nationwide standardised court statistics. In addition, they could be used for the management of backlogs and automated early-warning systems. Surveys are essential to assess how justice systems operate from the perspective of legal professionals and court users. An adequate follow-up of surveys is a prerequisite to improve the quality of justice systems.

Figure 47: Availability of monitoring and evaluation of court activities (*) (source: CEPEJ study ( )) (*) The evaluation system refers to the performance of court systems, using indicators and targets. In 2016, all Member States reported having a system that allows them to monitor the number of incoming cases and delivered decisions, as well as the length of proceedings making these categories superfluous for the above figure. Similarly, the more in-depth work on quality standards has superseded their use as an evaluation category. Data on ‘other elements’ include e.g. clearance rate (AT, FR), number of appealed cases and enforcement procedures (ES), outcome of the case, e.g. full or partial satisfaction (SK), final convictions (RO) and number of court sessions (PL). Figure 48: Availability of ICT for case management and court activity statistics

(0 = available in 0 % of courts, 4 = available in 100 % of courts ( )) (source: CEPEJ study) Figure 49: Topics of surveys conducted among court users or legal professionals (*) (source: European Commission ( )) (*) Member States were given one point per survey topic indicated regardless of whether the survey was conducted at national, regional or court level. ‘Other topics’ include: adequacy of premises as regards victims’ rights and disabled persons (MT). Availability of court information online (DK). The right to be heard, instructions on legal remedies (DE). This category also covers surveys among court staff, e.g. on court organisation (IE), human resources (IE, MT), integrity of judges (HU), workload (MT). Property profile of the judiciary (AT), career structure and training options (DE). The topic ‘awareness of rights’ was not included in surveys in any Member State in the respective period. BE carried out a survey in 2014. Figure 50: Follow-up of surveys conducted among court users or legal professionals (*) (source: European Commission ( )) (*) Member States were given one point per type of follow-up. The category ‘other specific follow-up’ included: feeding into the courts service’s online services strategy (IE), informing deliberations of the Probate Services Review Group (IE), evaluating the use of an online portal concerning tax and administrative courts (PT), editing existing website (DK). 3.2.4. Standards Standards can drive up the quality of justice systems. Following the examination of standards on timing and information to parties in the previous edition, the 2018 EU Justice Scoreboard focuses on timeframes and backlogs as a management tool in the judiciary ( ). Figure 51 presents an overview of which Member States use the standards on time limits, timeframes and backlogs. Time limits are quantitative deadlines, e.g. maximum number of days between the registration of a case until the first hearing. Timeframes are measurable targets/practices e.g. specifying a pre-defined share of cases to be completed within a certain time period. Standards on backlogs covered in Figure 51 mean whether a definition exists on when a pending case is considered to be a backlog. Figure 52 presents which bodies set, monitor and follow-up on timeframe standards and Figure 53 shows in more detail certain aspects on setting, monitoring and follow-up of backlogs. Figure 51: Standards on timing (*) (source: European Commission ( )) (*) Member States were given 1 point if standards are defined, regardless of the area (civil/commercial, administrative, or other). Figure 52 focuses on timeframes, which can be an effective management tool in the judiciary, since they can help to detect potential issues on efficiency and assist in identifying solutions (e.g. additional human or financial resources, reorganisation of court management process, temporary assistance to a court). The figure shows the competences of the different powers of the state to set, monitor and follow-up standards on timeframes.