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 The EU Justice Scoreboard A tool to promote effective justice and growth
Date: 2013-03-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU statistics, backlog of court cases, economic growth, independence of the judiciary, judge, judicial reform

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 27.3.2013  
COM(2013) 160 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 

The EU Justice Scoreboard 

A tool to promote effective justice and growth 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
INTRODUCTION  

The  on-going  economic  and  financial  crisis  in  the  EU  has  been  a  catalyst  for  profound 
changes.  Its  impact  can  be  seen  in  the  restructuring  of  national  economies  to  prepare  the 
ground for growth and competitiveness. 

In this reform process, the national justice systems play a key role in restoring confidence and 
the  return  to  growth.  An  efficient  and  independent  justice  system  contributes  to  trust  and 
stability.  Predictable,  timely  and  enforceable  justice  decisions  are  important  structural 
components of an attractive business environment. They maintain the confidence for starting a 
business, enforcing a contract, settling private debt or protecting property and other rights. 

Experience in Member States subject to the Economic Adjustment Programmes1 shows that 
shortcomings  in  the  functioning  of  a  justice  system  increase  the  negative  growth  spiral  and 
undermine the confidence of citizens and enterprises in the justice institutions. For this reason, 
in  2011,  national  judicial  reforms  became  an  integral  part  of  the  structural  components  in 
these programmes.  

The  improvement  of  the  quality,  independence  and  efficiency  of  judicial  systems  is  also  a 
priority  in  the  European  Semester,  the  new  EU  annual  cycle  of  economic  policy 
coordination.2 In 2012, six Member States3 were identified as having challenges, particularly 
with regard to the length of judicial proceedings and the organisation of the judiciary. 

The effectiveness of national justice systems is crucial for the EU 

Access  to  an  effective  justice  system  is  an  essential  right  at  the  foundation  of  European 
democracies and enshrined in the constitutional traditions common to the Member States. It is 
crucial for the effectiveness of all EU law, in particular the EU economic laws that contribute 
to  growth.  For  example,  national  courts  play  an  essential  role  in  enforcing  EU  competition 
laws4  and  other  EU  legislation  crucial  for  the  Single  Market5,  in  particular  in  the  areas  of 
electronic  communications6,  intellectual  property7,  public  procurement8,  environment9  or 
consumer protection10. 

1 
2 
3 
4 

5 
6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

EL, IE, LV, PT. 
Communication from the Commission, Annual Growth Survey 2013, COM(2012) 750 final. 
BG, IT, LV, PL, SI, SK. 
E.g. Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on 
competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1–25). 
E.g. Directive 2000/31/EC on electronic commerce (OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1–16). 
E.g. Framework Directive 2002/21/EC on electronic communications networks and services (OJ L 108, 
24.4.2002, p. 33–50). 
E.g. Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ L 157, 30.4.2004, p. 
45–86). 
E.g. Directive 2007/66/EC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning 
the award of public contracts (OJ L 335, 20.12.2007, p. 31–46). 
The role of national courts is highlighted in the Communication from the Commission, Implementing 
European Community Environmental Law, COM (2008) 773 final. 
E.g. Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights (OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 64–88). 

1 

 
 
                                                            
Whenever a national court applies EU legislation, it acts as a ‘Union court’ and must provide 
an effective judicial protection to everyone, citizens and enterprises, whose rights guaranteed 
in EU law were violated. The importance of this right to an effective remedy is enshrined in 
the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Article 47). 

Effective justice systems are also indispensable for strengthening the mutual trust needed for 
the  development  and  implementation  of  EU  instruments  based  on  mutual  recognition  and 
cooperation.  In  line  with  Article  67  (1)  of  the  TFEU,  the  Union  shall  constitute  an  area  of 
justice,  with  respect  for  the  different  legal  systems  and  traditions  of  the  Member  States. 
Citizens, businesses, judges and authorities are expected to trust, respect, recognise or execute 
decisions taken by the justice system in another Member State.  

Shortcomings  in  the  national  justice  systems  are  thus  not  only  a  problem  for  a  particular 
Member  State,  but  can  affect  the  functioning  of  the  Single  Market  and,  more  generally,  the 
whole EU. 

The need for a systematic overview 
In  its  Annual  Growth  Survey  2013,11  the  European  Commission  has  highlighted  the 
importance  of  improving  the  quality,  independence  and  efficiency  of  national  judicial 
systems. Before formulating Country Specific Recommendations in this area, there is a need 
for a systematic overview of the functioning of justice systems in all Member States, one that 
takes  fully  into  account  the  different  national  legal  traditions.  Objective,  reliable  and 
comparable data are necessary to support the justice reforms engaged for a renewed growth.  

1. 

WHAT IS THE EU JUSTICE SCOREBOARD? 

The  objective  of  the  EU  Justice  Scoreboard  (‘the  Scoreboard’)  is  to  assist  the  EU  and  the 
Member  States  to  achieve  more  effective  justice  by  providing  objective,  reliable  and 
comparable  data  on  the  functioning  of  the  justice  systems  of  all  Member  States.  Quality, 
independence  and  efficiency  are  the  key  components  of  an  'effective  justice  system'. 
Providing  information  on  these  components  in  all  Member  States  contributes  to  identifying 
potential shortcomings and good examples and supports the development of justice policies at 
national and at EU level. 

The main characteristics of the Scoreboard are: 

– 

11 
12 

it is a comparative tool which covers all Member States.12 Whatever the model of the 
national  justice  system  or  the  legal  tradition  in  which  it  is  anchored,  timeliness, 
independence, affordability, and easy access are some of the essential parameters of 
what  comprises  an  effective  justice  system.  While  the  Scoreboard  includes  a 
comparison  on  particular  indicators,  it  is  not  intended  to  present  an  overall  single 
ranking or to promote any particular type of a justice system; 

COM(2012) 750 final. 
Where national data are not available, this is mentioned in the relevant figures. 

2 

 
 
                                                            
– 

– 

– 

it aims to present trends on the functioning of national justice systems over time. In 
2013,  the  Scoreboard  presents  data  for  the  first  time  and  it  does  not  necessarily 
reflect  the  effects  of  the  on-going  reforms  in  certain  Member  States.13  As  the 
Scoreboard  is  a  regular  exercise,  such  effects  could  become  visible  in  future 
Scoreboards; 

it is a non-binding tool, to be operated as part of an open dialogue with the Member 
States which aims to help the Member States and EU institutions in defining better 
justice policies. It contributes to identify issues that deserve particular attention. Poor 
performance revealed by indicators requires a deeper analysis of the reasons behind 
the  result  and,  where  necessary,  engaging  in  appropriate  reforms,  bearing  in  mind 
that the comparability of data can be limited by differences in procedures and legal 
frameworks; 

it is an evolving tool that will gradually expand in the areas covered, the indicators 
and the methodology, with the objective of identifying the essential parameters of an 
effective  justice  system.  In  dialogue  with  Member  States,  the  Scoreboard  could 
progressively  cover  other  areas  of  the  justice  systems  and  other  elements  in  the 
'justice chain' through which a person or a company must go to get effective justice 
(e.g. from the initial phase of entering the justice system until the final phase of the 
execution of a ruling). 

Given  the  importance  of  national  justice  systems  for  the  economy,  the  scope  of  the  2013 
Scoreboard  focuses  on  the  parameters  of  a  justice  system  which  contribute  to  the 
improvement  of  the  business  and  investment  climate.  The  Scoreboard  examines  efficiency 
indicators  for  non-criminal  cases,  and  particularly  for  litigious  civil  and  commercial  cases, 
which  are  relevant  for  resolving  commercial  disputes,  and  for  administrative  cases. 
Administrative  justice  plays  an  important  role  in  a  business  environment  for  example  with 
regard to delivering licences or for disputes with administration on taxation or with national 
regulatory bodies. 

For preparing this Scoreboard, the Council of Europe Commission for the Evaluation of the 
Efficiency  of  Justice  (CEPEJ)  was  asked  by  the  European  Commission  to  collect  data  and 
conduct an analysis.14 The European Commission has used the most relevant and significant 
data for elaborating this Scoreboard. The Scoreboard also uses data from other sources, such 
as from the World Bank, World Economic Forum and World Justice Project. 

13 

14 

Many  Member  States  are  in  the  process  of  implementing  measures  for  improving  the  functioning  of 
their justice systems. In 12 Member States these reforms are developed in the context of EU initiatives 
and  instruments  (Economic  Adjustment  Programmes,  Country  Specific  Recommendations  within  the 
European Semester and the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism). 
The  full  study  on  the  functioning  of  judicial  systems  and  the  functioning  of  the  economy  in  the  EU 
Member  States,  prepared  in  2012  by  the  CEPEJ  for  the  European  Commission,  is  available  on  the 
website of DG Justice http://ec.europa.eu/justice/index_en.htm 

3 

 
 
                                                            
2. 

INDICATORS OF THE 2013 EU JUSTICE SCOREBOARD  

In 2013, the Scoreboard presents key findings based primarily on the indicators relating to the 
efficiency  of  proceedings:  the  length  of  proceedings,  the  clearance  rate,  and  the  number  of 
pending cases.15 

– 

– 

– 

The length of the proceedings expresses the time (in days) needed to resolve a case 
in  court  that  is  the  time  for  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. 

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  low  and  the  length  of  proceedings  is  high, 
backlog develops in the system. 

The  number  of  pending  cases  expresses  the  number  of  cases  that  still  have  to  be 
treated at the start of a period (e.g. a year). The number of pending cases influences 
the  disposition  time.  To  improve  the  length  of  proceedings  therefore  requires 
measures to reduce the number of pending cases. 

The  Scoreboard  further  examines  indicators  on  certain  factors  that  can  help  to  reduce  the 
length of proceedings and to increase the quality of justice: the monitoring and evaluation of 
court  activities,  the  Information  and  Communication  Technology  (ICT)  systems  for  courts, 
the alternative dispute resolution methods and the training of judges. Although several other 
important  factors  also  have  an  impact  on  the  length  of  proceedings,  particularly  the 
specificities  and  complexities  of  the  procedures,  the  above  indicators  provide  useful 
information reflecting the awareness of Member States on the importance of these issues and 
measures taken in that respect. 

– 

The monitoring and evaluation of courts' activities: in order to improve the quality 
and  efficiency  of  judicial  proceedings,  the  court  activities  should  be  monitored 
through a comprehensive and publicly available system of collection of information, 
and evaluated regularly. The indicators reflect the availability of regular monitoring 
systems of court activities and evaluation systems. 

The monitoring systems include the publication of an annual activity report and the 
measurement of the number of incoming cases, of decisions delivered, of postponed 
cases and of the length of proceedings. 

The evaluation of court activities indicator is based on the availability of: 

– 

– 

– 

the definition of performance indicators (such as incoming cases, closed cases, 
judges  and  court  staff, 
the  performance  of 
pending  cases,  backlogs, 
enforcement, costs), 

regular evaluation of performance and outputs, 

the  definition  of  quality  standards  (such  as  quality  assurance  policies,  human 
resource policies, proceedings benchmarks, usage of resources), 

15 

These  are  standard  indicators  defined  by  CEPEJ.  Their  definition  and  interrelation  is  available  at 
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/cepej/evaluation/default_en.asp 

4 

 
 
                                                            
– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

specialised court staff entrusted with quality policy. 

ICT systems for courts: the use of information and communication technologies has 
become  indispensable  for  the  effectiveness  of  the  administration  of  justice.  The 
indicators reflect the availability of ICT systems for registration and management of 
cases,  and  for  communication  and  information  exchange  between  the  courts  and 
their  environment (e.g. electronic web forms, court website, follow-up of cases on-
line,  electronic  registers,  electronic  processing  of  small  claims  and  undisputed  debt 
recovery, electronic submission of claims and videoconferencing). 

Alternative  Dispute  Resolution  methods  (ADR)  for  litigious  civil  and  commercial 
cases:  ADR  in  their  various  forms  may  complement  the  traditional  judicial 
procedures.  This  indicator  reflects  the  availability  of  alternative  dispute  resolution 
methods. 

Training  of  judges:  the  training  of  judges,  initial  training  and  continuous  training 
throughout their career, is an important element for the quality and effectiveness of 
judicial decisions. Training can focus on specialisation, but also on improving skills. 
This indicator provides information on compulsory training of judges. 

Resources:  the  budget  for  courts,  the  number  of  judges  and  lawyers  provide 
information on the resources used in the justice systems. 

The  Scoreboard  also  presents  findings  based  on  indicators  relating  to  the  perceived 
independence of the justice system. Perception of independence is important for investment 
decisions. The World Economic Forum (WEF) in its annual Global Competitiveness Report 
provides a ‘perceived independence index’ which is relevant in the context of the economic 
growth  as  it  is  based  on  a  survey  answered  by  a  representative  sample  of  firms    in  all 
countries  and  representing  the  main  sectors  of  the  economy  (agriculture,  manufacturing 
industry, non-manufacturing industry, and services).16 The World Justice Project (WJP) in the 
context of its 2012-2013 Rule of Law Index Report developed an indicator on the 'perceived 
independence  of  the  civil  justice',17  based  on  replies  from  a  general  population  poll  and 
qualified  respondents.  It  should  also  be  noted  that  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the  European 
Union18  and  the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights19  in  examining  the  independence  of  the 

16 

17 

18 

The WEF indicator is based on survey answers to the question: "To what extent is the judiciary in your 
country  independent  from  the  influences  of  members  of  government,  citizens,  or  firms?"  The  survey 
was replied to, depending on the country, between 2010 and 2011 by a representative sample of firms in 
all  countries  representing  the  main  sectors  of  the  economy  (agriculture,  manufacturing  industry,  non-
manufacturing  industry,  and  services).  The  administration  of  the  survey  took  different  formats, 
including face-to-face interviews with business executives, telephone interviews and mailings, with an 
online survey as an alternative. Available at: http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-report-
2012-2013/ 
The  WJP  Civil  justice  sub-indicator  indicates  perceptions  on  whether  the  civil  justice  is  free  of 
improper government influence. It is based on replies from: (1) a general population poll conducted by 
leading local polling companies using a representative sample of 1,000 respondents in the three largest 
cities in each country (depending on the country data were collected in 2009, 2011 or 2012); and (2) 
qualified  respondents'  questionnaires  consisting  of  closed-ended  questions  completed  by  in-country 
in  2012).  
practitioners  and  academics  with  expertise 
Data 
at: 
http://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/WJP_Index_Report_2012.pdf 
E.g. C-506/04, Wilson, [2006] I-8613. 

law  (data  were  collected 
7.4 

in  civil 
under 

available 

indicator 

are 

5 

 
 
                                                            
judiciary  have  underlined  the  importance  of  the  appearance  of  judicial  independence. 
According to the case law of these courts, the independence of the judiciary requires detailed 
rules  in  order  to  dismiss  any  reasonable  doubt  in  the  minds  of  individuals  as  to  the 
imperviousness of that body to external factors and its neutrality with respect to the interests 
before it. 

3. 

3.1. 

KEY FINDINGS OF THE 2013 EU JUSTICE SCOREBOARD 

Important disparities in the length of proceedings 

Justice delayed is justice denied. Timely decisions are essential for businesses and investors. 
In  their  investment  decisions,  companies  take  into  account  the  risk  of  being  involved  in 
commercial disputes, labour or taxation disputes or insolvencies. The efficiency with which a 
judicial  system  in  a  country  handles  litigation  is  very  important.  For  example,  legal 
enforcement  of  a  supply  or  service  contract  becomes  very  costly  the  longer  the  judicial 
dispute  takes,  and  even  meaningless  beyond  a  certain  time,  as  the  probability  to  retrieve 
money from payments and penalties diminishes. 

Data for all charts are from 2010, except when explicitly stated. Member States on the right 
side of the charts without values are those for which data were not available. Except in figure 
4,  all  figures  concern  proceedings  at  first  instance.  The  quality  and  efficiency  of  a  judicial 
system should already be reflected at first instance, as the first instance is an obligatory step 
for everyone going to court. 

Figure 1: Time needed to resolve non-criminal cases* (in days) (source: CEPEJ study20) 

* Non-criminal cases include civil and commercial cases, enforcement cases, land registry cases, business 
registry cases and administrative law cases. 

19 

20 

E.g.  Cooper  v.  The  UK  [GC],  no.  48843/99,  ECHR  2003-XII;  Campbell  and  Fell  v.  The  UK,  nos. 
7819/77 and 7878/77, 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80. 
Study  on  the  functioning  of  judicial  systems  and  the  functioning  of  the  economy  in  the  EU  Member 
Commission.  
by 
States, 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/index_en.htm 

European 

prepared 

CEPEJ 

2012 

the 

the 

for 

in 

6 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
Figure 2: Time needed to resolve litigious civil and commercial cases* (in days) (source: CEPEJ 
study) 

Litigious  civil  (and  commercial)  cases  concern  disputes  between  parties,  for  example  disputes  regarding 
contracts  and  the  insolvency  proceedings.  By  contrast,  non-litigious  civil  (and  commercial)  cases  concern 
uncontested proceedings, for example, uncontested payment orders. 

Figure 3: Time needed to resolve administrative cases* (in days) (source: CEPEJ study) 

* Administrative law cases concern disputes between citizens and local, regional or national authorities. 
Administrative law cases are addressed by special administrative courts in some countries, and handled by civil 
courts in others. 

7 

 
 
 
 
Figure 4: Time needed to resolve insolvency* (in years) (source: CEPEJ study/World Bank: Doing 
Business) 

* Time for creditors to recover their credit. The period of time is from the company’s default until the payment 
of some or all of the money owed to the bank. Potential delay tactics by the parties, such as the filing of dilatory 
appeals  or  requests  for  extension,  are  taken  into  consideration.  The  data  are  collected  from  questionnaire 
responses by local insolvency practitioners and verified through a study of laws and regulations as well as public 
information on bankruptcy systems. 

(cid:190)  The above  figures show important disparities in the length of proceedings: at least 
one third of Member States have a length  of proceedings at least two times higher 
than the majority of Member States.21 

The  length  of  proceedings  is  linked  to  the  rate  at  which  the  courts  can  resolve  cases,  the 
'clearance  rate',  and  to  the  number  of  cases  that  are  still  waiting  to  be  resolved  (pending 
cases). When the clearance rate is about 100% or higher it means the judicial systems 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, and as a result, at 
the end of the year, the number of unresolved cases adds up as pending cases. If this situation 
persists over several years, this could be indicative of a more systemic problem as backlogs 
build  up  which  further  aggravate  the  workload  of  courts,  and  which  cause  the  length  of 
proceedings to rise further. 

21 

Considering the figures 1, 2 and 3 together. 

8 

 
 
 
                                                            
Figure 5: Rate of resolving non-criminal cases (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) 

Figure 6: Rate of resolving litigious civil and commercial cases (in %) (source: CEPEJ study) 

9 

 
 
 
 
Figure 7: Rate of resolving administrative cases (in %) (source: CEPEJ study) 

(cid:190)  The above figures indicate that some Member States may experience difficulties in 

their capacity to resolve particular categories of cases. 

Figures 8-10 below show the number of pending cases at the start of the reference year (1 January 
2010). These pending cases are the result of the courts' performance of the previous year. For this 
reason, low rates of resolving cases in the course of 2010, as shown in figures 5-7 above, are not yet 
reflected  in  figures  8-10  below  on  the  number  of  pending  cases.  An  increase  of  the  number  of 
pending cases at the end of the year will be reported in future exercises.   

Figure 8: Number of non-criminal pending cases (per 100 inhabitants) (source: CEPEJ study) 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 9: Number of litigious civil and commercial pending cases (per 100 inhabitants) (source: 
CEPEJ study) 

Figure 10: Number of administrative pending cases (per 100 inhabitants) (source: CEPEJ study) 

(cid:190)  The above figures show that several Member States have a particularly high number 

of pending cases.  

In conclusion, it appears that: 

(cid:190)  Certain  Member  States  combine  unfavourable  factors:  lengthy  first  instance 
proceedings  together  with  low  clearance  rates  and/or  a  large  number  of  pending 
cases. Such situations merit special attention and a thorough analysis as they could 
be  indicative  of  more  systemic  shortcomings  for  which  remedial  action  should  be 
taken. 

(cid:190)  The reduction of the excessive length of proceedings should be a priority in order to 

improve the business environment and attractiveness for investment. 

11 

 
 
 
 
3.2.  Monitoring  and  evaluation  helps  to  shorten  the  length  of  proceedings  and  to 

increase the quality of justice 

The absence of reliable monitoring and evaluation can make improving the functioning of a 
justice system more difficult. Lack of quality of justice decision can increase risks in doing 
business for large companies and SMEs and affects consumer choices. It can result in rushed 
or  less  predictable  decisions,  incomprehensible  procedures  or  inaccessible  justice.  An 
effective time management of court cases requires that the courts, the judiciary and all justice 
end-users can be informed on the functioning of courts through a regular monitoring system. 
The  definition  of  quality  policies  and  the  evaluation  of  the  activities  of  courts  are  tools  to 
increase the quality of justice in order to improve access to justice, trust, predictability and the 
timeliness of justice decisions. 

Figure 11: Availability of monitoring of courts' activities22 (source: CEPEJ study) 

Figure 12: Availability of evaluation of courts' activities (source: 2012 CEPEJ Report) 

22 

Indicators in figures 11 to 22 cover all courts. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
The above figures show  
(cid:190)  that a large majority of Member States has a comprehensive monitoring system, but 

several Member States are lagging behind or do not make the data available; 

(cid:190)  that  several  Member  States  do  not  perform  regular  evaluations  of  court  activities 
and that quality standards are not defined in more than half of the Member States. 

3.3. 

Information and Communication Technology systems help to reduce the length 
of proceedings and to facilitate access to justice 

ICT  systems  for  the  registration  and  management  of  cases  are  indispensable  tools  at  the 
disposal of courts for an effective time management of cases, as they help to improve the rate 
at which the court can treat cases and thereby to reduce the overall length of proceedings. 

Figure 13: ICT Systems for the registration and management of cases (weighted indicator - min=0, 
max=4)23 (source: CEPEJ study) 

(cid:190)  The  above  figure  shows  that  a  large  majority  of  Member  states  have  a  well-
developed system for the registration and management of cases; however in several 
Member States developments are lagging behind. 

ICT  systems  for  communication  between  courts  and  parties  (e.g.  electronic  submission  of 
claims) can contribute to reduce delays and costs for citizens and businesses by facilitating the 
access  to  justice.  The  ICT  systems  also  play  an  increasing  role  in  cross-border  cooperation 
between judicial authorities and thereby facilitate the implementation of EU legislation. 

23 

Figures  13  and  14  show  composite  indicators  constructed  from  several  ICT  indicators  that  each 
measures availability of these systems from 0 to 4 (0= available in 0% of courts; 4=available in 100% 
of courts). 

13 

 
 
 
                                                            
Figure 14: Electronic communication between courts and parties (weighted indicator -min=0, 
max=4) (source: CEPEJ study) 

Figure 15: Electronic processing of small claims* (0 = available in 0% of courts; 4 = available in 100% 
of courts) (source: CEPEJ study)  

* The notion of “small claims” indicates a civil case where the monetary value of the claim is relatively low (the 
value varies among the Member States). 

14 

 
 
 
 
Figure 16: Electronic processing of undisputed debt recovery (0 = available in 0% of courts; 4 = 
available in 100% of courts) (source: CEPEJ study) 

Figure 17: Electronic submission of claims (0 = available in 0% of courts; 4 = available in 100% of 
courts) (source: CEPEJ study) 

(cid:190)  The above figures show large disparities between Member States in the development 

of ICT systems for information exchange between courts and the parties. 

3.4. 

Alternative Dispute Resolution methods help to reduce the workload of courts 

Effective mediation and other alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods provide an early 
settlement  between  parties  on  voluntary  basis,  reduce  the  number  of  pending  cases  and  can 
thus have an important positive impact on the workload of courts, which are then more able to 
keep reasonable timeframes. High quality ADR methods can be a credible alternative to the 
traditional  judicial  procedures  and  can  contribute  to  a  culture  of  peaceful  resolution  of 
disputes. 

15 

 
 
 
 
Figure 18: Availability of alternative dispute resolution methods (source: CEPEJ study) 

(cid:190)  The  above  figure  shows  that  in  nearly  all  Member  States  ADR  methods  are 
available, but evidence on their usage in commercial disputes is often not accessible. 

(cid:190)  Member States should encourage the availability and quality of mediation and other 

ADR methods. 

3.5. 

Promoting the training of judges can help to improve the effectiveness of justice 

Training policies can be part of the quality standards for the judiciary. Initial and continous 
training  is  important  for  maintaining  or  increasing  the  knowledge  and  the  skills  of  justice 
personnel.  Training  is  particularly  important  considering  the  continuous  development  of 
national and EU legislation, the increased pressure to meet the expectations of end-users and 
the  trend  towards  the  professional  management  within  the  judiciary.  Although  voluntary 
training for judges is a normal practice in certain Member States, the compulsory training for 
judges indicates commitment to promote up-to-date knowledge and skills for judges.  

Figure 19: Compulsory training for judges (source: 2012 CEPEJ Report)24 

24 

The three Member States on the right side at the end of the chart do not have compulsory training for 
judges. 

16 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
(cid:190)  The above figure shows that policies on compulsory continuous training for judges 

are very diverse among the Member States. 

3.6. 

Resources 

To  ensure  the  quality,  independence  and  efficiency  of  a  national  justice  system,  adequate 
financial and human resources are needed, taking into account the different legal traditions. In 
this context, the data may also be influenced by the adversarial or the inquisitorial nature of a 
justice  system.  Investing  in  a  well  organised  justice  system  can  make  an  important 
contribution to sustainable growth.  

Figure 20: Budget for courts* (in EUR per inhabitant) (source: CEPEJ study) 

*  The  annual  approved  (not  the  actually  executed)  public  budget  allocated  to  functioning  of  all  courts  (civil, 
commercial  and  criminal  courts,  without  the  public  prosecution  services  and  without  legal  aid),  whatever  the 
source of this budget. For the EU Member States whose total annual approved budget allocated to all courts 
cannot  be  separated  from  the  figures  for  the  public  prosecution  department  (BE,  DE,  ES,  EL,  FR,  LU,  AT),  the 
chart reflects the total figure (for BE, ES and AT the figure also includes the legal aid). Where appropriate, the 
annual approved budget allocated to the functioning of all courts includes the budget both at national level and 
at the level of regional or federal entities. 

17 

 
 
 
Figure 21: Number of judges* (per 100.000 inhabitants) (source: CEPEJ study) 

* The category consists of judges working full time plus, where applicable, the so-called Rechtspfleger/court 
clerks, who have the authority to deliver decisions and/or judgements on their own.  

Figure 22: Number of lawyers* (per 100.000 inhabitants) (source: CEPEJ study) 

* 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). 

(cid:190)  The  above  figures  show  different  approaches  regarding  the  financial  and  human 
resources  in  justice  systems,  including  among  the  Member  States  with  similar 
lengths of proceedings. 

3.7. 

Disparity in the perception of independence 

The  perceived  independence  of  the  judiciary  is  also  a  growth  enhancing  factor.  As  the 
independence of the judiciary assures the predictability, certainty, fairness and stability of the 
legal  system  in  which  businesses  operate,  a  perceived  lack  of  independence  can  deter 
investments. As a general rule, justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. The 
independence of the judiciary is also a requirement stemming from the right to an effective 
remedy enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.  

18 

 
 
 
 
Figure 23: Judicial independence (perception – higher value means better perception) 
(source: World Economic Forum)25 

Figure 24: Independence of civil justice (perception – higher value means better perception) 
(source: World Justice Project) 

(cid:190)  Even  though  several  Member  states  are  among  the  top  10  worldwide  leaders  in 
terms  of  the  perception  of  judicial  independence,  the  above  figures  show  a  rather 
low level of perception of judicial independence by business end-users of the justice 
system in certain Member States. These findings merit special attention and a more 
detailed assessment into why a lack of trust exists for certain Member States. 

4. 

FOLLOW-UP TO THE FINDINGS OF THE 2013 SCOREBOARD 

Follow-up in the context of the judicial reforms in the Member States 

4.1. 
The  key  findings  of  the  2013  Scoreboard  highlight  the  priority  areas  that  need  to  be 
addressed. The Commission will translate these priorities into the following actions: 

25 

The survey was replied by a representative sample of firms in all countries representing the main sectors 
of the economy (agriculture, manufacturing industry, non-manufacturing industry, and services). 

19 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
– 

– 

The  issues  identified  in  the  Scoreboard  will  be  taken  into  account  in  preparing  the 
forthcoming country specific analysis of the 2013 European Semester. They will also 
guide the work in the context of the Economic Adjustments Programmes. 
The Commission has proposed that Regional Development and Social Funds will be 
available  for  reforms  of  the  judicial  systems  in  the  next  multi-annual  financial 
framework. 

4.2. 

Addressing the data gap 

The  experience  with  the  2013  Scoreboard  reveals  the  difficulty  of  gathering  reliable  and 
comparable data. The comparability of data is a challenge as the national justice system and 
procedures  vary  significantly  and  some  Member  States  do  not  use  standard  definitions  for 
monitoring data. 

Despite the good EU average for the existence of monitoring systems, some Member States 
do  not  collect  data  in  a  way  which  allows  for  an  objective  evaluation  and  comparison  with 
other  Member  States.  In  addition  to  the  difficulty  to  obtain  comparable  data,  some  data  are 
missing  for  nearly  all  Member  States  on  issues  such  as  the  costs  of  proceedings,  interim 
measures, mediation cases, and the enforcement procedures. 

In  view  of  the  importance  of  well  functioning  national  justice  systems  in  achieving  the 
objectives  of  the  Union,  all  Member  States  should  address,  as  a  priority,  the  collection  of 
impartial,  reliable,  objective  and  comparable  data  and  make  it  available  in  support  to  this 
exercise. There is a mutual interest for Member States and national judiciaries to develop the 
collection of such data to better define justice policies.  

In this respect, the role of the CEPEJ is particularly relevant and the Commission underlines 
the importance for all Member States to cooperate fully with the CEPEJ in the provision of 
data. 

The Commission will also examine ways to improve data collection, in particular it intends to: 

– 

– 

– 

use  targeted  field  studies  on  how  the  justice  systems  function  in  practice  when 
applying  selected  growth-related  EU  legislation  and  Eurobarometer  qualitative 
surveys for collecting views of legal practitioners and various end-users; 
examine  with  the  networks  of  judges  and  judicial  authorities  how  the  quality  and 
availability  of  comparable  data  could  be  improved  at  national  level,  including  as 
regards the structural independence of the judiciary; 
explore with Eurostat how to improve the collection of comparable data for the most 
significant indicators. 

4.3. 

Further steps 

The  quality,  independence  and  efficiency  of  justice  systems  are  important  structural 
components  of  sustainable  growth  and  social  stability  in  all  Member  States  and  are 
fundamental to the effective implementation of EU law. On the basis of this Scoreboard, the 
Commission invites the Member States, the European Parliament,26 and all stakeholders to an 
open  dialogue  and  constructive  collaboration  towards  the  continued  improvement  of  the 

26 

In  particular  the  Legal  Affairs  Committee  (JURI),  the  Civil  Liberties,  Justice  and  Home  Affairs 
Committee (LIBE) and the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee (ECON). 

20 

 
 
                                                            
national  justice  systems  in  the  EU  in  the  context  of  the  European  Semester,  of  Europe's 
growth strategy 'Europe 2020', the strengthening of the Single Market and the EU's Citizens' 
Agenda. 

Looking further ahead, the Commission plans to launch a wider debate on the role of Justice 
in the EU and will organise, on 21 and 22 November 2013, the Assises de la justice, a high 
level  conference,  which  will  bring  together  senior  policy  makers  at  European  and  national 
level, judges from supreme courts and other courts, judicial authorities, legal professions and 
all stakeholders. Such a joint reflection is indispensable for developing a true European area 
of justice that would meet citizens' expectations and contribute to sustainable growth on the 
basis of the rule of law and other values upon which the Union is founded. 

21