EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 10.7.2020 COM(2020) 306 final COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard



1. Introduction Effective justice systems are essential for implementing EU law and for upholding the rule of law and the values upon which the EU is founded. National courts act as EU courts when applying EU law. It is national courts in the first place that ensure that the rights and obligations provided under EU law are enforced effectively (Article 19 TEU). Effective justice systems are also essential for mutual trust, the investment climate and the sustainability of long-term growth. For this reason, improving the efficiency, quality and independence of national justice systems continues to feature among the priorities of the European Semester – the EU’s annual cycle of economic policy coordination. The 2020 annual sustainable growth strategy, which sets out the economic and employment policy strategy for the EU and places sustainability and social inclusion at the heart of the EU's economic policymaking, reiterates the link between effective justice systems and the business environment in Member States. Well-functioning and fully independent justice systems can have a positive impact on investment and therefore contribute to productivity and competitiveness. They are also important to ensure effective cross-border enforcement of contracts and administrative decisions and dispute resolution, which are essential for the functioning of the single market (). Against this background, the EU Justice Scoreboard presents an annual overview of indicators focusing on the essential parameters of effective justice systems: efficiency, quality and independence. The 2020 edition further develops the indicators on all three elements. It does not reflect the consequences of the COVID-19 crisis, as the data covers the years 2012 to 2019, but not 2020. − The European Rule of law Mechanism – As announced in the political guidelines of President von der Leyen, the Commission has established a comprehensive European Rule of Law Mechanism to deepen its monitoring of the situation in Member States. The Rule of Law Mechanism will act as a preventive tool, deepening dialogue and joint awareness of rule of law issues. Its main features are detailed in the Commission's 2019 ‘Communication on further strengthening the rule of law within the Union – A blueprint for action’ The new Mechanism will rely on an annual Rule of Law Report, which will provide a synthesis of significant developments – both positive and negative – in all Member States. The Report will be based on a variety of sources, including the EU Justice Scoreboard.



What is the EU Justice Scoreboard? The EU Justice Scoreboard is an annual comparative information tool. Its purpose is to assist the EU and Member States 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 efficiency, quality and independence of justice systems in all Member States. It does not present an overall single ranking, but gives an overview of how all the justice systems function, based on 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. Efficiency, quality and independence 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 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 and to provide relevant annual data. What is the methodology of the EU Justice Scoreboard? The Scoreboard uses a range of information sources. Large parts of the quantitative data are provided by the Council of Europe’s European Commission for 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 2012 to 2018, 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. Note that the length of court proceedings may vary substantially between areas within a Member State, particularly in urban centres where commercial activities may lead to a higher caseload. Other sources of data, which cover the period from 2010 to 2019 (), 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) ( ), the 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)( ), and the World Economic Forum (WEF)( ). Over the years, the methodology for the Scoreboard has been further developed and refined in close cooperation with the group of contact persons on national justice systems, particularly through a questionnaire (updated annually) and collecting data on certain aspects of the functioning of justice systems.

The availability of data, in particular for indicators on the efficiency of justice systems, continues to improve as many Member States have invested in their capacity to produce better judicial statistics. Where difficulties in gathering or providing data continue to exist, this is either due to insufficient statistical capacity or to the fact that the national categories for which data are collected do not correspond exactly to the ones used for the Scoreboard. Only in very few cases is the data gap due to a lack of contributions from national authorities. The Commission continues to encourage Member States to further reduce this data gap. How does the EU Justice Scoreboard feed into the European Semester? The Scoreboard provides elements for assessing the efficiency, quality and independence of national justice systems and thereby aims at helping Member States to improve the effectiveness of their national justice systems. By comparing information on the justice systems, the Scoreboard makes it easier to identify shortcomings and best practices and to keep track of challenges and the progress. In the context of the European Semester, country-specific assessments are carried out through bilateral dialogue with the concerned national authorities and stakeholders concerned. This assessment is reflected in the annual country reports within the European Semester and combines the insights from the Scoreboard with qualitative, country-specific analysis that reflects the characteristics of the legal systems and the broader context of the Member States concerned. Where identified shortcomings have macro-economic significance, the analysis under the European Semester may lead to the Commission proposing to the Council to adopt country-specific recommendations to improve the national justice systems in individual Member States (). Why are effective justice systems important for an investment friendly business environment? Effective justice systems that uphold the rule of law have been identified as having a positive economic impact. 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 beneficial impact of well-functioning national justice systems for the economy is supported by a wide range of studies and academic literature, including from the International Monetary Fund ( ) the European Central Bank ( ), the OECD ( ), the World Economic Forum ( ), and the World Bank ( ). A study has found that reducing the length of court proceedings by 1% (measured in disposition time ( )) may increase growth of firms ( ) and that a higher percentage of companies perceiving the justice system as independent by 1% tends to be associated with higher turnover and productivity growth ( ). Another study has indicated a positive correlation between perceived judicial independence and foreign direct investment flows in Central and Eastern Europe ( ). In addition, several surveys have highlighted the importance of the effectiveness of national justice systems for companies. For example, in one survey, 93% of large companies replied that they systematically review the rule of law conditions (including court independence) on a continuing basis in the countries they invest in( ). In another, over half of small and medium-sized enterprises replied that cost and excessive length of judicial proceedings, respectively, were the main reasons for not starting court proceedings over infringement of intellectual property rights (IPR) ( ). The Commission Communication “Identifying and adressing barriers to the Single Market” () and the Single Market Enforcement Action Plan () also provide insight into the importance of effective justice systems for the functioning of the single market, in particular for businesses. How does the Commission support the implementation of good justice reforms through the Technical Support? Member States can draw on the Commission’s technical support available through the Directorate-General REFORM under the structural reform support programme( ) which has a total budget of €222.8 million for 2017-2020. Since 2017, 16 Member States ( ) have already been receiving or have requested technical support in many areas. This includes for example technical support to improve the efficiency of the court system, to reform the judicial map, on court organisation, on the design or implementation of e-justice programmes and cyber justice, on case-management systems, on the selection and promotion process for judges, for the training of judges and for the out-of-court resolution of consumer disputes. In May 2020, the Commission also presented its proposals for a Recovery Plan ( ). As part of the Recovery Plan, a Technical Support Instrument ( ) was proposed as the continuation of the existing Structural Reform Support Programme. It builds on its success, allowing the Commission to help strengthening the institutional and administrative capacity of EU Member States. The Instrument will continue to allow Member States to ask for technical support in the area of, among others, the justice system.

2. Context: Developments in justice reforms in 2019 In 2019, a large number of Member States continued their efforts to further improve the effectiveness of their justice systems. Figure 1 presents an updated overview of adopted and planned measures across the different functional areas of justice systems in Member States engaged in reform activities. Figure 1: Legislative and regulatory activity concerning justice systems in 2019 (adopted measures/initiatives under negotiation per Member State) (source: European Commission ( )) In 2019, procedural law continued to be an area of particular focus in a large number of Member States with a significant amount of ongoing or planned legislative activity. Reforms concerning the status of judges, the rules for legal professionals and prosecutors also saw elevated activity. Compared with the last edition of the EU Justice Scoreboard, the adoption of measures in areas such as the administration of courts and councils of the judiciary gathered further momentum as Member States followed up on earlier announcements. . Activity in other areas, such as information and communication technology (ICT) development in the justice system or re-designing judicial maps, slowed down. Some Member States are already actively using or at least planning to make use of artificial intelligence in their justice systems. Once more, the overview confirms the observation that justice reforms require their time – sometimes spanning several years – from their announcement until the adoption of the legislative and regulatory measures and their actual implementation on the ground.





3. Key findings of the 2020 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 national justice systems decreased in a majority of Member States and remains largely below the 2012 levels, even if it continues to vary considerably between Member States (Figure 2). This shows the importance of remaining attentive to ensure the effectiveness of justice systems. Figure 2: Number of incoming civil, commercial, administrative and other cases, 2012 – 2018 (*) (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 LV (applied retroactively to 2016 and also 2017) SK and SE (data for 2016 and 2017 has been adapted to include migration law cases as administrative cases, in line with CEPEJ methodology). Figure 3: Number of incoming civil and commercial litigious cases, 2012 – 2018 (*) (1st instance/per 100 inhabitants) (source: CEPEJ study) (*) Under the CEPEJ methodology, litigious civil/commercial cases concern disputes between parties, e.g disputes about 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 4: Number of incoming administrative cases, 2012 – 2018 (*) (1st instance/per 100 inhabitants) (source: CEPEJ study) (*) Under the CEPEJ methodology, administrative law cases concern disputes between individuals and local, regional or national authorities. DK and IE do not record administrative cases separately. Dejudiciarisation of some administrative procedures have occurred in RO in 2018. Methodology changes in EL, SK and SE. In SE, migration cases have been included under administrative cases (reotractively applied for 2016 and also 2017).

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: estimated length of proceedings (disposition time), clearance rate; and number of pending cases.

− Estimated 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) ( ). It is a calculated quantity that indicates the estimated minimum time that a court would need to resolve a case while maintaining the current working conditions. The higher the value, the higher is the probability that it takes the court longer to reach a decision. Figures mostly concern proceedings at first instance courts and compare, where available, data for 2012, 2016, 2017 and 2018 ( ). Two figures show the disposition time in 2018 in civil and commercial litigious cases, and administrative cases at all court instances, and one figure shows the average length of proceedings in money laundering cases at first and second instance courts. Figure 5: Estimated time needed to resolve civil, commercial, administrative and other cases, 2012 – 2018 (*)(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. LV: the sharp decrease is due to court system reform, and error checks and data clean-ups in the Court information system. Figure 6: Estimated time needed to resolve litigious civil and commercial cases, 2012 – 2018(*) (1st instance/in days) (source: CEPEJ study) (*) Under the CEPEJ methodology, litigious civil/commercial cases concern disputes between parties, e.g disputes about 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 7: Estimated time needed to resolve litigious civil and commercial cases (*) at all court instances in 2018 (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 are available for first and second instance courts in BE, BG and IE, for second instance courts in NL, for second and third instance courts in NL and AT or for second instance courts in DE and HR. There is no third instance court in MT. Access to a third instance court may be limited in some Member States. Figure 8: Estimated time needed to resolve administrative cases, 2012 – 2018 (*) (1st instance/in days) (source: CEPEJ study) (*) Administrative law cases concern disputes between individuals 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. CY: in 2018, the number of resolved cases has increased as a consequence of cases being tried together, the withdrawal of 2,724 consolidated cases and the creation of an Administrative Court 2 years ago. Figure 9: Estimated time needed to resolve administrative cases (*) at all court instances in 2018 (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 the first instance court in LU, for second instance courts in MT and RO and for the third instance court in NL. The supreme or another highest court is the only appeal instance in CZ, IT, CY, AT, SI and FI. There is no third instance court for these types of cases in HR, LT, LU, and MT. 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 around 100% or higher, it means the judicial system is able to resolve at least as many cases as 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 10: Rate of resolving civil, commercial, administrative and other cases, 2012 – 2018 (*) (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. IT: different classification of civil cases introduced in 2013. Figure 11: Rate of resolving litigious civil and commercial cases, 2012 – 2018 (*) (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. IT: different classification of civil cases introduced in 2013. Data for NL include non-litigious cases. Figure 12: Rate of resolving administrative cases, 2012 – 2018 (*) (1st instance/in %) (source: CEPEJ study) (*) Past values for some Member States have been reduced for presentation purposes (CY in 2018 = 219%; IT in 2012=279,8 %); Methodology changes in EL and SK. DK and IE do not record administrative cases separately. In CY the number of resolved cases has increased as a consequence of cases being tried together, the withdrawal of 2,724 consolidated cases and the creation of an Administrative Court 2 years ago. − 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 13: Number of pending civil, commercial and administrative and other cases, 2012 – 2018 (*) (1st instance/per 100 inhabitants) (source: CEPEJ study) (*) Methodology changes in SK. Pending cases include all instances in CZ and, until 2016, in SK. IT: different classification of civil cases introduced in 2013. Figure 14: Number of pending litigious civil and commercial cases, 2012 – 2018 (*) (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. IT: different classification of civil cases introduced in 2013. Data for NL include non-litigious cases. Figure 15: Number of pending administrative cases, 2012 – 2018 (*) (1st instance/per 100 inhabitants) (source: CEPEJ study) (*) Past values for some Member States have been reduced for presentation purposes (EL in 2012=3.5). 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 2020 Scoreboard builds on previous data in the areas of competition, electronic communications, EU trademark, consumer law 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 16 presents the average length of cases against decisions of national competition authorities applying Articles 101 and 102 TFEU ( ). Figure 16: Competition: Average length of judicial review, 2013-2018 (*) (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 102 TFEU, but not based on appeals against the national competition authority. An estimation of length was used in BG, IT. An empty column can indicate 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 17 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 17: Electronic communications: Average length of judicial review cases, 2013-2018 (*) (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 (except PT for 2017 and 2018, and RO for 2018: no data). LU: no cases. In some court instances, the limited number of relevant cases (LV, LT, MT, SK, SE) 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 2500 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 in 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 18 shows the average length of EU trademark infringement cases in litigation among private parties.



Figure 18: EU trademark: Average length of EU trademark infringement cases, 2013-2018 (*) (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 for certain years. BG: estimation by courts used for 2016. PL: estimation by courts used for 2015. Particularly long cases affecting the average reported in EE, IE, LV and SE. EL: data based on weighted average length from two courts. DK: data from all trademark cases - not only EU - in Commercial and Maritime High Courts; for 2018, no data on average length due to new ICT system. ES: cases concerning other EU IP titles are included in the calculation of average length; for 2018, an estimation is used. – 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 19 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, the length of proceedings by consumer authorities is presented again. Figure 20 shows the average length of administrative decisions by national consumer protection authorities in 2014-2018 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 19: Consumer protection: Average length of judicial review, 2013-2018(*)

(1st instance/in days) (source: European Commission with the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network) (*) AT, FI, DE, LU: scenario is not applicable as consumer authorities are not empowered to decide on infringements of relevant consumer rules. The number of relevant cases is low (less than five) in CY, IE, NL and SE. An estimate of average length was provided by EL and RO. Figure 20: Consumer protection: Average length of administrative decisions by consumer protection authorities, 2014-2018(*) (1st instance/in days) (source: European Commission with the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network)

(*) AT, DE, LU: scenario is not applicable as consumer authorities are not empowered to decide on infringements of relevant consumer rules. The number of relevant cases is low (less than five) in NL and SE. An estimate of average length was provided by DK, FI, FR, EL, FR and RO.

– 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, 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 negatively affect 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 was used to collect data on the judicial phases of the national anti-money laundering regimes. Figure 21 shows the average length of first instance court cases dealing with money laundering criminal offences. Figure 21: Money laundering: Average length of court cases, 2014-2018(*) (1st instance/in days) (source: European Commission with the Expert Group on Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism) (*) No data for 2018: BE, EE, CY, AT, PL, and PT. ES, NL: estimated length. LV: Due to a relatively low number of cases in 2016 various factors possibly impact 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. SE: calculation in 2017 based on a sample of resolved cases; the data for 2018 are preliminary. IT: data refer to the responding courts, covering about 91% of the total proceedings in 2015, and about 99% in 2016 and 2017; data refer to both trial and preliminary court hearings.



3.1.4. Summary on the efficiency of justice systems An efficient justice system manages its caseload and backlog of cases, and delivers its decisions without undue delay. The main indicators used by the EU Justice Scoreboard to monitor 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 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard contains data on efficiency spanning seven years (2012-2018). This time-span allows to identify certain trends and to take into account that justice reforms often take time to show their impact. Looking at the available data since 2012 in civil, commercial and administrative cases, efficiency has improved or remained stable in 11 Member States, while it decreased, albeit often only marginally, in eight Member States. Positive developments can be observed in most of the Member States that have been identified in the context of the European Semester as facing specific challenges ( ): ·Since 2012, in nearly all of those Member States, the length of first instance court proceedings in the broad ‘all cases’ category (Figure 5) and the litigious civil and commercial cases (Figure 6) has decreased or remained stable. In administrative cases (Figure 8), the length of proceedings since 2012 decreased or remained stable in most of these Member States. Overall, only a few Member States saw an increase in the length of proceedings in 2018. ·The Scoreboard presents data on the length of proceedings in all court instances for litigious civil and commercial cases (Figure 7) and administrative cases (Figure 9). Data show that in a number of Member States identified as facing challenges with the length of proceedings in first instance courts, higher instance courts perform in a more efficient manner. On the contrary, for some other Member States facing challenges, the average length of proceedings in higher instance courts is even longer than in first instance courts. ·In the broad ‘all cases’, and the litigious civil and commercial cases categories (Figures 10 and 11), the overall number of Member States where the clearance rate is more than 100% has increased since 2012. In 2018, 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 12), a larger variation of the clearance rate can be observed from one year to another and while it generally remains lower than in other categories of cases, some Member States have made good progress. In particular, most of the Member States facing challenges report an increase in the clearance rate in administrative cases since 2012. ·Since 2012, progress is continuing in almost all Member States facing the most substantial challenges with their backlogs , regardless of the category of cases. Often substantial progress in reducing pending cases has been made for both litigious civil and commercial cases (Figure 14) and administrative cases (Figure 15). Despite these improvements, significant differences between Member States with comparatively few pending cases and those with a high number of pending cases remain, and in some Member States, backlogs appear to be building up. Efficiency in specific areas of EU law Data on the average length of proceedings in specific areas of EU law (Figures 16-21) provide an insight into the functioning of justice systems in these types of business-related disputes. Data on efficiency in specific areas of law are collected on the basis of narrowly defined scenarios and the number of relevant cases may appear 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 specific areas in a year. It is therefore worth noting that several Member States which do not appear to be facing challenges on the basis of general data on efficiency report significantly longer average length of cases in specific areas of EU 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 show the following trends : ·For competition cases (Figure 16), although the overall caseload faced by courts across Member States increased slightly, the length of judicial review decreased or remained stable in six Member States, while it increased in five other Member States. In 2018 the positive trend continued, with only two Member States reporting an average length exceeding 1000 days (compared to three in 2017). ·In the area of electronic communications (Figure 17), the case-loads faced by courts continued to increase, ending the positive trend in terms of reduced length of proceedings observed in previous years. In 2018, most Member States registered an increase in the average lengths of proceedings, both compared to 2017 and to 2013. ·As regards EU trademark infringement cases (Figure 18), in 2018 trends in the average length of proceedings varied significantly. Some Member States registered sharp increases, while others managed to cope better with their caseload and reduced the time needed to resolve cases. ·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 19 and 20). In 2018, seven Member States reported that their consumer protection authorities took on average less than three months to issue a decision in a case covered by EU consumer law, while in nine Member States they took more than 6 months.Where the decisions of the consumer protection authorities were challenged in courts, in 2018 the judicial review of an administrative decision took on average less than one year in the majority of Member States. ·The effective fight against money laundering is crucial in protecting the financial system, fair competition and preventing negative economic consequences. Challenges in length of court proceedings when dealing with money laundering offences, may influence the effective fight against money laundering. The 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard presents updated data on the length of judicial proceedings dealing with money laundering offences (Figure 21), which show that while in around 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 regarding prosecution of money laundering offences ( ). 3.2. Quality of justice systems There is no single way of measuring the quality of justice systems. The 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard continues to examine factors that are generally accepted as relevant for improving the quality of justice. As in previous years, they are grouped into four categories: 1) accessibility of justice for citizens and businesses; 2) adequate financial 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 people to obtain 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 not only easily accessible but is also tailored to specific groups of society that would otherwise have difficulties in accessing the information. Figure 22 shows the availability of online information on specific aspects of the judicial system and for specific groups of society. Figure 22: Availability of online information about the judicial system for the general public, 2019(*) (source: European Commission ( )) (*) DE: Each federal state as well as the federal level decide individually which information to provide online.

– Legal aid, court fees and legal fees – The cost of litigation is a key factor for access to justice. High litigation costs, including court fees( ) and legal fees( ), may hamper access to justice. Litigation costs in civil and commercial matters are not harmonised at EU level. They are governed by national legislation and therefore vary from one Member State to another. Access to legal aid is a fundamental right enshrined in the Charter( ). It allows access to justice for those who would not be able to bear or advance the costs of litigation. Most Member States grant legal aid on the basis of the applicant’s income( ). Figure 23 shows the availability of full or partial legal aid in a specific consumer case involving a claim of €6,000. It compares the income thresholds for granting legal aid, expressed as percentage of the Eurostat poverty threshold in each Member State ( ). For example, if the threshold for legal aid appears at 20 %, it means that an applicant with an income 20 % higher than the Eurostat poverty threshold in his or her Member State will be still eligible for legal aid. On the contrary, if the threshold for legal aid appears at below 0, it means that a person with an income below the poverty threshold may not be eligible for legal aid. 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), the latter applying eligibility criteria different from that of the former. Other Member States operate either only a full or only a partial legal aid system. Figure 23: Income threshold for legal aid in a specific consumer case, 2019(*) (differences in % from Eurostat poverty threshold) (source: European Commission with the CCBE( )) (*) EE: decision to grant legal aid is not based on the level of financial resources of the applicant. IE: partial legal aid has to take into account also the disposable assets of the applicant. LV: thresholds vary by municipality, upper limit is represented in the chart. Most Member States require parties to pay a court fee when starting judicial proceedings. Recipients of legal aid are often exempt from paying court fees. Only in BG, EE, IE, NL, PL and SI are recipients of legal aid not automatically exempt from paying court fees. In CZ the court decides on an individual basis whether to exempt a legal aid recipient from paying court fees. Figure 24 compares for 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 €6,000 claim, the consumer will have to pay a €600 court fee to start judicial proceedings. The low value claim is based on the Eurostat poverty threshold for each Member State.



Figure 24: Court fee to start judicial proceedings in a specific consumer case, 2019(*) (level of court fee as a share of the value of the claim) (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 2019, this value ranged from €164 in RO to €1,804 in LU). BE, EL and RO: no information on court fees for a low value claim was provided. LU: Litigants have to pay bailiff fees to start proceedings as a plaintiff unless they benefit from legal aid. NL: Court fees for income <€2275/month.



Efficient contract enforcement is essential for the economy. The likelihood of recovering the actual costs of litigation strenghtens the position of the creditor seeking to enforce a contract. Typically, the creditor, as plaintiff, is required to pay a court fee for filing a case with the court. The courts generally order the defendant who loses to reimburse in full the court fees advanced by the plaintiff who has won. Figure 25 shows the level of court fee required for starting a judicial proceeding in a specific commercial case (see footnote 59). Figure 25: Court fee to start judicial proceedings in a specific commercial case, 2019(*) (in €) (source: European Commission with the CCBE())

(*) Recovery of court fees is decided on a case-by-case basis in ES, PT and RO. There is no full recovery of court fees by the winning party in EL and HU. Normally, the creditor has to advance the fees of their own lawyer not only throughout the litigious phase but already in the pre-litigious phase. As regards reimbursement, most Member States apply the rule according to which a party that loses a lawsuit is expected to bear not only its own legal expenses, but also those of the winning party. Such a fee-shifting rule deters the ﬁling of low-probability-of-winning cases, whilst it encourages the filing of high-probability-of-winning cases. Figure 26 shows the amount the court would award to the successful plaintiff in a specific commercial case scenario (see footnote 60). Three main systems can be distinguished: (1) in Member States with a statutory fee system, reimbursement of legal fees depends on the level of statutory fee envisaged for the work carried out by the lawyer, which vary significantly between Member States; (2) in Member States without a statutory fee system, there is either full (HU, PT, FI) or partial (PL, LV, LU) reimbursement of the legal fee; and (3) in a number of Member States the reimbursement is decided by the court on a case-by-case basis. Figure 26: Recoverability of legal fees in a commercial trial, 2019 (*) (in EUR) (source: European Commission with the CCBE( )) (*) For this figure, legal fees do not include clerical costs and VAT, if payable. The hypothetical legal fee for the litgious phase provided for in the scenario is €1 650. Full recovery in systems without statutory fee means that this amount (€1,650) can be recovered. Member States with partial recovery (PL, LV, LU) are sorted by order of the recoverable legal fee (highest to lowest, amounts range from €1,275 – €500). The figure does not include information on the recoverability of legal fees for the pre-litigious phase, which is is not envisaged in all Member States. AT: scenario not fully applicable to ATs system of reimbursement. MT: there is no concept of an hourly legal fee in MT, reimbursement is determined based on the value of the claim. IT: there is a statutory fee in IT (€3235 in the scenario), but the court can decide on reimbursement within a set range. LT: court decides taking into account guidance by the Ministry of Justice, maximum amount in the scenario would be €3,350. – 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 as well as 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 facilitate the implementation of EU legislation, for example, on small claims procedures.



Figure 27: Availability of electronic means, 2018 (*) (0 = available in 0% of courts, 4 = available in 100% of courts ( )) (source: CEPEJ study) (*) New methodology, data is not comparable to past years. DK and RO: cases may be submitted to courts by email. – Accessing judgments – Ensuring online access to judgments 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 judicial decisions are essential for creating user-friendly search facilities () that make case-law more accessible to legal professionals and the general public. Seamless access to and easy reuse of case law enables innovative ‘legal tech’ applications supporting practitioners. The online publication of court decisions requires balancing a variety of interests, within the boundaries set by legal and policy frameworks. The General Data Protection Regulation () fully applies to the processing of personal data by courts. A fair balance has to be struck between the right to data protection and the right to publicity of court decisions and transparency of the justice system when assessing what data are to be made public. This is particularly the case where there is prevailing public interest that justifies the disclosure of those data. In many countries, the law or practice requires the anonymisation or pseudonymisation () of judicial decisions before publication, either in a systematic manner or upon request. Data produced by the judiciary are also governed by European legislation on open data and the reuse of public sector information (). The availability of judicial decisions in a machine-readable format () facilitates an algorithm-friendly justice system (). Figure 28: Online access to published judgments by the general public, 2019 (*) (civil/commercial, administrative and criminal cases, all instances) (source: European Commission ( )) (*) Maximum possible: 9 points. For each court instance, one point was given if all judgments are available for civil/commercial and administrative and criminal cases respectively and 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 the two areas of law (civil/commercial and administrative), the same number of points has been given for both areas. BE: for civil and criminal cases, each court is in charge of deciding on the publication of its own judgments. BG: Court of Cassation criminal decision are all published except those containing classified information. DE: each federal state decides on online availability of first instance judgments. IE: for criminal cases, summary cases are not generally the subject of a written judgment. CY: for administrative and criminal cases, judges decide on which judgments to be published. LU and SE: courts do not publish judgments regularly online (only landmark cases). AT: for first and second instance, judges decide which judgments are published. NL: courts decide on publication according to published criteria. PL: for administrative cases, the chief of unit in every court decides on the publication. PT: for civil and criminal cases, a commission within the court decides on the publication.





Figure 29: Arrangements for producing machine-readable judicial decisions, 2019 (*) (civil/commercial, administrative and criminal cases, all instances) (source: European Commission ( )) (*) Maximum possible: 24 points per type of cases. For each of the three instances (first, second, final) one point can be given if all judicial decisions are covered. If only some judicial decisions are covered at a given instance, only half point is awarded. Where a Member State has only two instances, points have been given for three instances by mirroring the respective higher instance as the non-existing instance. For those Member States that do not distinguish between administrative and civil/commercial cases, the same points have been allocated for both areas of law. ES: The use of the General Council for the Judiciary (CGPJ) database for commercial purposes, or the massive download of information is not allowed. The reuse of this information for the elaboration of databases or for commercial purposes must follow the procedure and conditions established by the CGPJ through its Judicial Documentation Center. FR: Only the judgments published by the Cour de Cassation are accessible to the public, free of charge. Those published by the courts of appeal on Jurica are accessible through the private virtual justice network, and to legal publishers. Judgments transmitted by the first instance and high courts to the Cour de Cassation, are not subject to anonymisation or pseudonymisation. Open access to court judgments – excluding repetitive and systematice requests – has been established. The reuse of personal data of judges and judicial staff for evaluating, analysing, comparing or predicting their actual or supposed professional practices is punishable. IE: The Irish legal system does not have a specialised court jurisdiction to deal with administrative law cases. LU: In administrative cases, there are only two court levels.

– Accessing alternative dispute resolution methods – Figure 30 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 30: Promotion of and incentives for using ADR methods, 2019 (*) (source: European Commission ( )) (*) Maximum possible: 52 points. Aggregated indicators based on the following indicators : 1) website providing information on ADR, 2) Publicity campaigns in media, 3) Brochures for the general public, 4) Court provides specific information sessions on ADR upon request, 5) ADR/mediation co-ordinator at courts, 6) Publication of evaluations on the use of ADR, 7) Publication of statistics on the use of ADR, 8) Legal aid covers (partly or in full) costs incurred with ADR, 9) Full or partial refund of court fees, including stamp duties, if ADR is successful, 10) No lawyer for ADR procedure required, 11) Judge can act as mediator, 12) Agreement reached by the parties becomes enforceable by the court 13) Use of electronic tools to resolve the dispute through ADR methods. For each of these 13 indicators, one point was awarded for each area of law. CZ: data for administrative disputes is not available. DK: each court has an ambassador responsible for promoting the use of mediation. Administrative courts have the possibility to propose to the parties to turn to mediation. IE: administrative cases are subsumed within the category of civil and commercial cases. EL: ADR exists in the area of public procurement procedure before Administrative Courts of Appeal. 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. SK: the Slovak legal order does not support the use of ADR for administrative purposes. SE: judges have procedural discretion on ADR. Seeking an amicable dispute settlement is a mandatory task for the judge unless it is inappropriate due to the nature of the case.



– Child-friendly justice – Figure 31 shows the various arrangements in Member States that make justice system more accessible for children and suited to their needs, for example by providing child-friendly information on proceedings or undertaking measures to prevent the child having to go throuh several hearings. Figure 31: Child-friendly justice, 2019 (*) (source: European Commission ( )) 3.2.2. Resources Sufficient resources, including the necessary investments into physical and technical infrastructure, and well-qualified, trained and adequately remunerated personnel of all categories, are necessary for the good functioning of the justice system. Without adequate facilities, tools or personnel with the required qualifications, skills and access to continuous training, the quality of proceedings and decisions is put at stake. – Financial resources – The figures below show the actual government expenditure on the operation of the justice system (excluding prisons), both per inhabitant (Figure 32) and as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) (Figure 33) and, finally, the main categories of expenditure on law courts (Figure 34) ( ).





Figure 32: General government total expenditure on law courts, 2012, 2016-2018 (*) (in EUR per inhabitant) (source: Eurostat) (*) Member States are ordered according to the expenditure in 2018 (from highest to lowest). 2018 data for ES, FR, HR, PT and SK are provisional. Figure 33: General government total expenditure on law courts, 2012, 2016-2018 (*) (as a percentage of GDP) (source: Eurostat) (*) Member States are ordered according to the expenditure in 2018 (from highest to lowest). 2018 data for ES, FR, HR, PT and SK are provisional.



Figure 34 shows the main economic categories comprising government expenditure on law courts: 1) wages and salaries of judges and court staff, including social contributions (‘compensation of employees’ ( )), 2) operating costs for goods and services consumed by the law courts such as building rentals, office consumables, energy and legal aid (‘intermediate consumption’ ( )), 3) investment in fixed assets, such as court buildings and software (‘gross fixed capital formation’ ( )), and 4) other expenditure. Figure 34: General government total expenditure on law courts by category (*) (in 2018, as a percentage of total expenditure) (source: Eurostat) (*) Data for ES, FR, HR and SK are provisional, data for PT are estimated. – 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 35: Number of judges, 2012-2018 (*) (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. AT: Data on administrative justice is introduced for 2016 cycle for the first time. EL: the total number of professional judges includes different categories over the years shown above, which partly explains their variation. Since 2016, data on number of professional judges includes all the ranks for criminal and political justice as well as administrative judges. IT: The regional audit commissions, local tax commissions and military courts are not taken into consideration. LU: numbers have been revised following an improved methodology. Figure 36: Proportion of female professional judges at Supreme Courts 2017-2019 (*) (source: European Commission ( )) (*) sorted by 2019 figures, highest to lowest.





Figure 37: Number of lawyers, 2012 - 2018 (*) (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). DE: no distinction is made between different groups of lawyers in Germany, such as between solicitors and barristers. FI: since 2015, the number of lawyers provided includes both the number of lawyers working in the private sector and the number of lawyers working in the public sector. – 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. Figure 38: Share of continuous training of judges on various types of skills, 2018 (*) (as a percentage of total number of judges receiving these types of training) (source: European Commission ( )) (*) (*) Figure 38 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 identical 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 EL, MT and PT did not provide specific training activities on the selected skills. DK: including court staff. AT: including prosecutors. Figure 39: Availability of training in communication for judges, 2019 (*) (source: European Commission ( )) (*) Maximum possible: 14 points. Member States were given 1 point if they have initial training and 1 point if they have continuous training (maximum of 2 points for each type of training). DK: no training is offered on communicating with people who are visually or hearing impaired because the state offers support in form of tools or an assistant in the courtroom to visually or hearing impaired people, e.g. a deaf interpreter. Other communication related trainings include: courses aimed at enhancing the public communication skills and communication with media (BE, BG, EE, LV, NL, PL, RO, SK); courses on questioning skills (DE and AT), courses on people management (BE, ES, PL) and soft skill trainings cover enhancing the clarity of court decisions and presentation methods (CZ, DK, LV, HU, PL, SK). 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 to manage backlogs and automated early-warning systems. Surveys are essential in assessing how justice systems operate from the perspective of legal professionals and court users. An adequate follow-up on the surveys’ findings is a prerequisite to improve the quality of justice systems.



Figure 40: Availability of ICT for case management and court activity statistics, 2018 (*)

(0 = available in 0% of courts, 4 = available in 100% of courts ( )) (source: CEPEJ study) (*) New methodlogy, data not comparable to past years. Figure 41: Topics of surveys conducted among court users or legal professionals, 2018 (*) (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: surveys among lawyers on the functioning of certain courts (ES); awareness of ICT measures as a means of improving user accessibility (MT); resources and material conditions of courts (PT); questions related to a project on procedural fairness (SI), possibilities for the improvement of the courts’ functioning (SK); conceptions of appropriate pubishment (FI); and satisfaction of legal professionals and court users with the services delivered by the judicial system (SE). In DE, a number of different surveys were carried out at the level of the federal states.

Figure 42: Follow-up of surveys conducted among court users or legal professionals, 2018 (*) (source: European Commission ( )) (*) Member States were given one point per type of follow-up. The category ‘other specific follow-up’ included: inspection (ES); use as guidance for internal policy development (MT); publication of informative tools for the general (SI); and self-assessmemt reports of courts (SK). 3.2.4. Standards Standards can improve the quality of justice systems. Following the overview of standards on timing and information to parties in the previous editions, the 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard focuses on timing, backlogs and timeframes as a management tool for the judiciary ( ). Figure 43 shows an overview of which Member States use standard measures on time limits, timeframes and backlogs and includes for the first time information broken down by the areas of laws and instances at which such standards exist. Time limits are quantitative deadlines, e.g. maximum number of days between the registration of a case until the first hearing. Backlogs are cases older than an identified period of time. Timeframes are measurable targets/practices e.g. specifying a pre-defined share of cases to be completed within a certain time period. Figure 43: Existence of standards on timing, 2019 (*) (source: European Commission ( )) (*) Member States were given 1 point per instance (first, second, final) for each area of law (civil/commercial, administrative and criminal) if a standard is defined. Maximum possible: 27 points. 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 the two areas of law (civil/commercial and administrative), the same number of points have been given for both areas.

3.2.5. Summary on the quality of justice systems Easy access, sufficient resources, effective assessment tools and appropriate standards and practices are the factors that contribute to a high quality of justice systems. Citizens and business expect high quality decisions from an effective justice system.The 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard develops its comparative examination of these factors. Accessibility This edition looks again at a number of elements contributing to a citizen-friendly justice system: ·Almost all Member States provide access to some online information about their judicial system, including a centralised web portal with online forms and interactive education on legal rights (Figure 22). Differences appear on the content of the information and how adequate it is to respond to people’s needs. For example, only a limited number of Member States (9) enable people to find out whether they are eligible for legal aid through an interactive online simulation. However, information for non-native speakers as well as targeted information for visually or hearing impaired people is available in the majority of Member States. ·The availability of legal aid and the level of court fees have a major impact on the access to justice, in particular for people in poverty. Figure 23 shows that in some Member States, consumers whose income is below the Eurostat poverty threshold would not receive legal aid. Compared to last year, accessibility of legal aid has remained stable. At the same time, over the years, legal aid has become less accessible in some Member States. The level of court fees (Figure 24) has remained largely stable since 2016, although the burden of court fees continues to be proportionally higher for low value claims. The difficulty in benefiting from legal aid combined with high levels of court fees in some Member States could have a dissuasive effect for people in poverty to access justice. ·The 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard for the first time also includes information on court fees and the recoverability of legal costs in a commercial case. The level of court fees for commercial litigation (Figure 25) varies greatly among Member States (ranging from 0.1% to 6% of the value of the claim), with only two Member States having no court fee at all. Figure 26 shows, for the first time, to what extent legal costs can be recovered by the winning party in a commercial case. Large differences regarding the recoverablity of legal fees for the litigious phase appear both between Member States with and without a statutory fee system as well as within these groups (in particular between more and less generous statutory fee systems). In addition, in many Member States, recoverability of legal costs depends on the courts’ discretion. The level of generosity of the system for recovering legal fees can have either incentivizing or deterring effects on the probability of filing a case, and therefore on the overall access to justice. ·The availability of electronic means during the judicial procedure contributes to easier access to justice and the reduction of delays and costs. Figure 27 shows that in more than half of the Member States, electronic submission of claims and transmission of summons is still not in place or is possible only to a limited extent, as was already seen in the 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard. Large gaps remain in particular as regards the possibility to follow court proceedings online, where no Member State has reached full deployment in all courts in all areas of law. ·Compared to previous years, online access to court judgments (Figure 28) has remained stable, particularly for the publication of judgments at the highest instance: 19 Member States publish all civil/commercial and administrative judgments and the same number of Member States also publish criminal judgments at the highest instance. These positive numbers encourage all Member States to further improve as decisions at the highest instance play an important role for the consistency of case law. At lower instances, the number of Member States publishing all judgments is still significantly lower, both for criminal and civil/commerical and administrative judgments, a figure that has remained stable since 2017. ·The 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard deepens the examination of arrangements in place in the Member States that can facilitate producing machine-readable judicial decisions (Figure 29). All Member States have at least some arrangements in place for civil/commercial, administrative and criminal cases. However a considerable variance among the Member States can be observed. It appears that administrative courts are relatively more advanced as regards creating the enabling factors for algorithm-friendly justice system. Justice systems where arrangements for modelling judgments according to standards enabling their machine readability have been put in place seem to have potential to achieve better results in the future. ·The number of Member States promoting the voluntary use of alternative dispute resolution methods (ADR) (Figure 30) for private disputes has again continued to grow compared to previous years. This is mainly achieved by introducing more incentives for the use of ADR across different areas of law. Administrative disputes have now been taken into consideration for the second year in a row, showing a slight expansion as now more than half of the Member States allow ADR in this area. ·For the first time, the 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard presents a consolidated overview of the measures taken by Member States for a child-friendly justice system (Figure 31). Almost all Member States make at least some accommodations for children, with measures for child-friendly hearings (including in the settings) and to prevent several hearings of a child particularly prevalent. However, less than half of Member States have dedicated child-friendly websites providing information about the justice system. Resources High quality justice systems in Member States require sufficient levels of financial and human resources, including the necessary investments into physical and technical infrastructure, appropriate initial and continuous training, as well as diversity among judges, including gender balance. The 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard shows the following: ·In terms of financial resources, the data show that, overall, in 2018, general government total expenditure on law courts continued to remain mostly stable in Member States, with significant differences in actual amounts, both in EUR per inhabitant and as a percentage of GDP between Member States persisting (Figures 32 and 33). Almost all Member States increased their expenditure per capita in 2018 (an increase compared to 2017) and a majority also increased their expenditure as percentage of GDP. ·As in 2019, the 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard also shows the breakdown of total expenditure into different categories based on data gathered by Eurostat. Figure 34 shows major differences in spending patterns among Member States. On the one hand, while the wages and salaries of judges and court staff (including social contributions) represent the biggest share in most Member States, investment into fixed assets such as court buildings and software is generally very low, and even absent in some Member States. The expenditure on operating costs (e.g. building rentals, legal aid and other consumables), on the other hand, is significantly higher in a few Member States than in most others. This breakdown has remained relatively stable year-to-year (Figure 34). ·Women still represent less than fifty percent of judges at the level of Supreme Courts in most Member States (Figure 36). The evolution over the three year period from 2017 to 2019 shows that trends diverge between Member States, but the proportion of female judges at Supreme Courts has grown since 2010 in most Member States. ·On the training of judges, while almost all Member States provide at least some continuous training on judgecraft, fewer offer training on IT skills, court management and judicial ethics and the share of judges receiving such training remains low in most countries (Figure 38). On training to communicate with vulnerable groups of parties, there is a continued trend of improvement, in particular concerning persons who are visually or hearing impaired, victims of gender-based violence and asylum seekers (Figure 39). Training on awareness raising and dealing with disinformation has also become more widely available compared to last year. Assessment tools ·While most Member States have fully implemented ICT case management systems (with a few exceptions), gaps continue to remain as regards tools of producing court activity statistics (Figure 40). These systems serve various purposes, including generating statistics, and are to be implemented consistently across the justice system. Some Member States have early-warning systems to detect malfunctions or non-compliance with case processing standards, which enables the finding of timely solutions. In some Member States, it is still not possible to ensure nationwide data collection across all justice areas. ·The use of surveys among court users and legal professionals (Figure 41) has again decreased, with a rising number of Member States opting not to conduct any surveys. However, there seems to be some variance as to which Member States did not conduct surveys, inidcating that sometimes surveys are conducted only every other/every few years. Accessibility, customer service, court hearings and judgments, as well as the overall trust in the justice system, remain recurring topics for surveys, but only a few Member States inquired about the satisfaction of groups with special needs or about individuals’ awarness of their rights. Almost all Member States who used surveys also ensured follow-up (Figure 42), although the extent of this follow-up continued to vary greatly. Results generally fed into annual or specific reports and in many Member States they fed an evalution or were used to identify the need to amend legislation. Standards Standards can drive up the quality of justice systems. This edition of the EU Justice Scoreboard continues to examine in more detail certain standards aiming to improve the timing of proceedings and breaks down these standards in more granular manner taking into account the instance and areas of law where such standards exist. ·Almost all Member States use standards on timing, although they are not always developed to the same degree at all instances and in all areas of law. Standards fixing time limits (e.g. fixed time from the registration of a case until the first hearing) continue to become more wide-spread, while standards on time frames (e.g. specifying a pre-defined share of cases to be completed within a certain time) and backlogs remain comparatively less common (Figure 43). However, certain Member States facing particular challenges on efficiency are currently not using such standards or only to a limited extent.



3.3. Independence Judicial independence, which is integral to the task of judicial decision-making, is a requirement stemming from the principle of effective judicial protection referred to in Article 19 TEU, and from the right to an effective remedy before a court or tribunal enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (Article 47) ( ). That requirement presumes (a) external independence, when the body concerned exercises its functions wholly autonomously, without being subject to any hierarchical constraint or subordinated to any other body and without taking orders or instructions from any source whatsoever, thus being protected against external interventions or pressure liable to impair the independent judgment of its members and to influence their decisions, and (b) internal independence and impartiality, when an equal distance is maintained from the parties to the proceedings and their respective interests with regard to the subject matter of those proceedings (). Judicial independence guarantees that all the rights that individuals derive from EU law will be protected and that the values common to the Member States set out in Article 2 TEU, in particular the value of the rule of law, will be safeguarded (). The preservation of the EU legal order is fundamental for all citizens and business whose rights and freedoms are protected under EU law. The perceived independence of the judiciary is a growth-enhancing factor, as a perceived lack of independence can deter investments. In addition to indicators on perceived judicial independence from various sources, the 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard presents a number of indicators on how justice systems are organised to protect judicial independence in certain types of situations where independence could be at risk. Reflecting the input from the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ),the Network of the Presidents of the Supreme Judicial Courts of the EU (NPSJC), and from the Expert Group on Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism, the 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard shows updated indicators in relation to legal safeguards on the disciplinary proceedings regarding judges, and the appointment of members of the Councils for the Judiciary, and two new overviews on the disciplinary proceedings regarding prosecutors.

3.3.1. Perceived judicial independence Figure 44: Perceived independence of courts and judges among the general public (*) (source: Eurobarometer ( ) — light colours: 2016, 2018 and 2019, dark colours: 2020)

(*) Member States are ordered first by the percentage of respondents who stated that the independence of courts and judges is very good or fairly good (total good); if some Member States have the same percentage of total good, then they are ordered by the percentage of respondents who stated that the independence of courts and judges is fairly bad or very bad (total bad); if some Member States have the same percentage of total good and total bad, then they are ordered by the percentage of respondents who stated that the independence of courts and judges is very good; if some Member States have the same percentage of total good, total bad and of very good, then they are ordered by the percentage of respondents who stated that the independence of courts and judges is very bad. Figure 45 shows the main reasons given by respondents for the perceived lack of independence of courts and judges. Respondents among the general public, who rated the independence of the justice system as being ‘fairly bad’ or ‘very bad’, could choose between three reasons to explain their rating. The Member States are listed in the same order as in Figure 44. Figure 45: Main reasons among the general public for the perceived lack of independence (share of all respondents — higher value means more influence) (source: Eurobarometer ( )) Figure 46: Perceived independence of courts and judges among companies (*) (source: Eurobarometer ( ) — light colours: 2017, 2018 and 2019, dark colours: 2020) (*) Member States are ordered first by the percentage of respondents who stated that the independence of courts and judges is very good or fairly good (total good); if some Member States have the same percentage of total good, then they are ordered by the percentage of respondents who stated that the independence of courts and judges is fairly bad or very bad (total bad); if some Member States have the same percentage of total good and total bad, then they are ordered by the percentage of respondents who stated that the independence of courts and judges is very good; if some Member States have the same percentage of total good, total bad and of very good, then they are ordered by the percentage of respondents who stated that the independence of courts and judges is very bad. Figure 47 shows the main reasons given by respondents for the perceived lack of independence of courts and judges. Respondents among companies, who rated the independence of the justice system as being ‘fairly bad’ or ‘very bad’, could choose between three reasons to explain their rating. The Member States are listed in the same order as in Figure 46. Figure 47: Main reasons among companies for the perceived lack of independence (rate of all respondents — higher value means more influence) (source: Eurobarometer ( )) Figure 48: WEF: businesses’ perception of judicial independence, 2010-2019 (perception — higher value means better perception) (source: World Economic Forum ( )) 3.3.2. Structural independence The guarantees of structural independence require rules, particularly as regards the composition of the court and the appointment, length of service and grounds for abstention, rejection and dismissal of its members, in order to dispel any reasonable doubt in the minds of individuals as to the imperviousness of that court to external factors and its neutrality with respect to the interests before it ( ). Those rules must, in particular, be such as to preclude not only any direct influence, in the form of instructions, but also types of influence which are more indirect and which are liable to have an effect on the decisions of the judges concerned (). European standards have been developed, particularly by the Council of Europe, for example in the 2010 Council of Europe Recommendation on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities ( ). The 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard presents a number of indicators on how justice systems are organised to safeguard judicial independence. This edition of the EU Justice Scoreboard contains updated indicators on bodies and authorities involved in disciplinary proceedings regarding judges (Figures 49 and 50), and on the appointment of members of the Councils for the Judiciary (Figures 51 and 52) ( ). The 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard also presents information on bodies and authorities involved in disciplinary proceedings regarding prosecutors (Figures 53 and 54) and an updated more detailed figure on instructions to prosecutors in individual cases (Figure 55) ( ). The figures present the national frameworks as they were in place in December 2019. The figures presented in the Scoreboard do not provide an assessment or present quantitative data on the effectiveness of the safeguards. They are not intended to reflect the complexity and details of the safeguards. Having more safeguards does not, in itself, ensure the effectiveness of a justice system. It should also be noted that implementing policies and practices to promote integrity and prevent corruption within the judiciary is also essential to guarantee judicial independence. Ultimately, the effective protection of judicial independence requires a culture of integrity and impartiality, shared by magistrates and respected by the wider society. – Safeguards on disciplinary proceedings regarding judges – Disciplinary proceedings regarding judges are among the most sensitive situations in relation to judicial independence. According to the Court of Justice “the rules governing the disciplinary regime […] of those who have the task of adjudicating in a dispute must provide the necessary guarantees in order to prevent any risk of that disciplinary regime being used as a system of political control of the content of judicial decisions” ( ). The set of guarantees identified by the Court of Justice as essential for safeguarding the independence of the judiciary include rules which define both conduct amounting to disciplinary offences and the penalties actually applicable, rules which provide for the involvement of an independent body in accordance with a procedure which fully safeguards the rights enshrined in Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter, in particular the rights of the defence, and rules which lay down the possibility of bringing legal proceedings challenging the disciplinary bodies’ decisions ( ). The Court of Justice held that “Article 267 TFEU gives national courts the widest discretion in referring matters to the Court (…) at whatever stage of the proceedings they consider appropriate” ( ). According to the Court of Justice, any national rule inhibiting this discretion “in order to avoid being (…) exposed to disciplinary penalties” is “detrimental to the prerogatives granted to national courts and tribunals by Article 267 TFEU and, consequently, to the effectiveness of the cooperation between the Court and the national court (…) established by the preliminary ruling mechanism” ( ). The Court has also stated that “not being exposed to disciplinary sanctions for (…) sending a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court (…) constitutes a guarantee essential to judicial independence” ( ).

According to the Council of Europe standards, disciplinary proceedings regarding judges may follow where they fail to carry out their duties in an efficient and proper manner ( ). The interpretation of the law, assessment of facts or weighing of evidence carried out by judges to determine cases should not give rise to civil or disciplinary liability, except in case of malice and gross negligence ( ). Moreover, disciplinary proceedings should be conducted by an independent authority as a court with all the guarantees of a fair trial. The judge under disciplinary proceeding should have the right to challenge both the decision and the sanction. Disciplinary sanctions should be proportionate ( ). Figure 49 presents an updated overview of the authorities that decide on disciplinary sanctions regarding ordinary judges, which can be either (a) regular independent authorities such as courts (Supreme Court, Administrative Court or Court President) or Councils for the judiciary, or (b) other authorities whose members are specifically appointed by the Council for the Judiciary, by judges or by the executive. Figure 49: Authority deciding on disciplinary sanctions regarding judges (*) ( ) (*) BG: Lighter disciplinary sanctions may be imposed by the Court President. Any decision on disciplinary measures are open to judicial review before the Supreme Administrative Court. CZ: Disciplinary cases are examined by disciplinary chambers of the Supreme Administrative Court. The members are proposed by the President of the Court from among a list of judges and are chosen by sortition. DK: The special Court of Indictment and Revision comprising five members, formally appointed by the Minister of Justice but nominated respectively by the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the Judges Association and the Bar Association in addition to a distinguished academic, decides on disciplinary sanctions. The president of a first instance court can issue a warning. DE: Disciplinary measures can be applied in formal disciplinary proceedings (see Section 63 German Judiciary Act for federal judges and the equivalent provision at the level of the Länder) by service courts (‘Dienstgericht des Bundes’ concerning federal judges and ‘Dienstgerichte der Länder’ concerning federal state judges), which are special panels in regular courts. The members of these panels are appointed by the judges (‘Präsidium’) of the particular court (the Federal Court of Justice or higher regional court or regional court). Less severe disciplinary measures, such as reprimands, can be issued in a disciplinary order (see Section 64 German Judiciary Act for federal judges and the equivalent provisions at the level of the Länder) by either a court president or the ministry of justice (both at the level of federal states and at federal level). EE: Disciplinary cases are examined by the Disciplinary Chamber of Judges appointed by the Supreme Court, and by the General Assembly of all Estonian judges. IE: The Judicial Conduct Committeee decides, which is established by the Judicial Council and is composed by three judges elected by their peers, five court presidents (members ex officio) and by five lay-members appointed by the government. Under the Constitution, a judge may be removed from office for stated misbehaviour or incapacity upon resolutions passed by both Houses of Parliament (the Oireachtas) calling for his/her removal. EL: The disciplinary authority over judges is exercised, in the first and second instance, by councils composed of regular judges of higher rank chosen by lot. Disciplinary authority over high ranking judges is exercised by the Supreme Disciplinary Council.. IT: Decisions of the Council for the Judiciary on disciplinary measures are open to judicial review before the Supreme Court. LV: : Disciplinary cases are examined by the Judicial Disciplinary Committee, whose members are appointed by the general meeting of judges. ES: Disciplinary decisions regarding minor disciplinary offences are made by the governance chamber of the respective Court of the district where the disciplined judge sits (High Court of Justice, National Court and Supreme Court, and even by the Presidents of Supreme Court, National Audience and Superior Court of Justice where the disciplined judge sits according 421.1.a) Organic Law of Judiciary). LT: At first instance, the Judicial Court of Honour, whose members and chairperson (judge, elected by the Council for the Judiciary) are laid out in the Ruling of the Council for the Judiciary, decides. It is composed of six judges selected and appointed by the Council for the Judiciary, two members appointed by the President of the Republic and two members appointed by the Speaker of the Seimas. At second instance, the Supreme Court decides. HU: Disciplinary cases are examined by the Service Court appointed by the National Judicial Council. The president of the court may impose the mildest sanction (‘warning’) that can be challenged before the Service Court. MT: The Committee for Judges and Magistrates, which is a subcommittee of the Commission for the Administration of Justice, decides. The Committee consists of three judges or magistrates elected by their peers. PL: The Minister of Justice selects disciplinary judges after a non-binding consultation with the National Council for the Judiciary. The Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court, tasked with deciding i.a. on disciplinary cases of judges in second instance, was found to be not an independent court within the meaning of EU law in three rulings of the Supreme Court, implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 November 2019. SI: The disciplinary court is appointed by the Council for the Judiciary, from among members of the Council itself and from among judges proposed by the Supreme Court. SK: Presidents of first instance courts have the power to impose the disciplinary sanction of a ‘written warning’. Disciplinary panels are appointed by the Council for the Judiciary. For the President and Vice President of the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court is competent for disciplinary proceedings. SE: A permanent judge may be removed from office only if they have committed a serious crime or repeatedly neglected their duties, and thereby show that they are manifestly unfit to hold the office. Should the decision to remove the judge from office have been made by another authority than a court (in practice by the National Disciplinary Offence Board), the judge concerned may call upon a court to review that decision. The decision can be challenged by the judge on their own in the district court or with a support of the trade union in the labour court as a first instance court. Figure 50 presents an updated overview of the investigative bodies, that carry out the formal investigation during disciplinary proceedings regarding judges. It does not concern preliminary enquiries to decide whether or not to initiate a formal disciplinary proceeding. The investigation phase is a particularly sensitive step within disciplinary proceedings, which could affect judicial independence. The investigative power can be exercised either (a) by regular independent authorities such as Court Presidents or Councils for the Judiciary, or (b) by other investigators who are specifically appointed -by the Council of the Judiciary, by judges or by other authorities- for conducting investigations in disciplinary proceedings regarding judges. Figure 50: Investigator in charge of formal disciplinary proceedings regarding judges (*) ( ) (*) BG: The relevant administrative head of the court [for facts which might lead to the sanction of the reprimand] or the Judge’s College (disciplinary panel) to the Supreme Judicial Council of Bulgaria investigates. The Inspectorate at the Supreme Judicial Council carries out inspections on which basis it can make proposals for disciplinary proceedings. CZ: The minister of justice can also conduct some preliminary enquiries in order to prepare the motion to initiate disciplinary proceedings, normally consulting the president of the court where the concerned judge sits. DK:Anyone can bring a complaint to the Special Court of Indictment and Revision, which is located and administered at the Supreme Court, and which decides after hearing both parties. The Director of the Public Prosecution can also investigate. DE: There is no formal pre-investigatory phase. In disciplinary orders, concerning less severe disciplinary measures such as reprimand, the court president and the highest service authority (usually the ministry of justice, both at the level of federal states and at federal level) assess the facts. The highest service authority decides whether to launch a disciplinary proceeding before the court. Then the court carries out formal investigations. EE: The president of a court or the Chancellor of Justice (Ombudsman) can conduct an investigation. IE: Judges are not subject to a disciplinary body or disciplinary regime apart from the procedure under the Constitution under which a judge may be removed from office for stated misbehaviour or incapacity upon resolutions passed by both Houses of Parliament (the Oireachtas) calling for their removal. EL: For civil and criminal courts: The Judicial Inspection Body which is elected from among judges by lot. For administrative courts: The investigator is chosen by lot among the members of the Council of State. ES: The Promoter of disciplinary action is appointed by the General Council for the Judiciary; the Promoter is selected from a pool of judges of the Supreme Court and Magistrates with more than 25 years of legal experience, but exclusively exercises the functions of Promoter during their mandate. FR: The president of the Council for the Judiciary chooses one or two members of the Council for the Judiciary to conduct the relevant investigations. The ministry can ask a report to the Judicial inspection body before the decision to bring the case to the Council. IT: The Prosecutor General at the Supreme Court is entitled to conduct the investigation. The Inspectorate General at the Ministry of Justice is entitled to carry out administrative enquiries. CY: The investigative judge, appointed by the Supreme Court, investigates. LV: The Judicial Disciplinary Committee investigates. HU: The Disciplinary Commissioner, appointed by the Service Tribunal (disciplinary court), investigates. LT: The Judicial Ethics and Discipline Commission, whose members and chairperson (elected by the Council for the Judiciary) are laid out in the Ruling of the Council for the Judiciary, is composed of four judges appointed by the Council for the Judiciary, two members appointed by the President of the Republic, and one member appointed by the Speaker of the Seimas, investigates. The chairperson of the Judicial Ethics and Discipline Commission has the right to delegate the court president in which the judge is working or the president of the higher court to carry out the investigation and present the results of the investigation. MT: The Committee of Judges and Magistrates investigates. NL: The Prosecutor-General investigates. PL: The Minister of Justice appoints the Disciplinary Officer for ordinary court judges and his/her two deputies (they, in turn, appoint their own deputies from among judges) to investigate. The Minister of Justice can take over any ongoing investigation by appointing an ad hoc Disciplinary Officer of the Minister of Justice. PT: The Council for the judiciary appoints the Judicial Inspection Body, which investigates. RO The Judicial Inspection Body investigates. SI: The Judicial Council appoints a disciplinary prosecutor from among candidates proposed by the Supreme Court to investigate. SK: The Disciplinary Panel, appointed by the Council for the Judiciary, conducts the investigation. SE: The Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Chancellor of Justice act as prosecutors in cases of serious malpractice. – Safeguards on the nomination of judges-members of the Councils for the Judiciary – Councils for the judiciary are essential bodies for ensuring the independence of justice. It is for the Member States to organise their justice systems, including deciding on whether or not to establish a Council for the Judiciary. However, well established European standards, in particular Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12, recommend that ‘not less than half the members of [Councils for the Judiciary] should be judges chosen by their peers from all levels of the judiciary and with respect for pluralism inside the judiciary’ ( ). The figure below shows whether the judiciary is involved in the appointment of judges-members of the Councils for the Judiciary. Figure 51: Appointment of judges-members of the Councils for the Judiciary: involvement of the judiciary (*) ( ) (*) The Member States appear in the alphabetical order of their geographical names in the original language. The figure presents the national frameworks as they were in place in December 2019. DK: Judges-members of the Council are selected by judges. All members are formally appointed by the Minister of Justice. EL: Judges-members are selected by lot. ES: Judges-members are appointed by the Parliament — the Council communicates to the Parliament the list of candidates who have received the support of a judges’ association or of 25 judges. NL: Judges-members are selected by the judiciary and are appointed on the proposal of the Council, based among others on the advice of a selection committee (consisting mainly of judges and court staff). All members of the Council are formally appointed by Royal Decree, an administrative act that does not leave any room for discretion to the executive. PL: Candidate judges-members are proposed by groups of at least 2 000 citizens or 25 judges. From among the candidates, the deputies’ clubs select up to nine candidates, from which a committee of the lower chamber of the Parliament (Sejm) establishes a final list of 15 candidates, who are appointed by the Sejm. RO: The campaign and election of judges-members are organised